Talk:Siren
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
References in popular culture
editThere is a tendency by occasional Users to add circumstances where they have come across the term siren to the disambig page. Arguably such references are better catalogued in the article References to sirens in popular culture. Thoughts? Dick G 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Song to the Siren
editExtraordinary that the Tim Buckley song: "Song to the Siren" is not mentioned here. Received wisdom has it that the song is a classic. I'd agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.187 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it is such a worthy piece of music I would expect someone to have written an article on it by now. If it's a glaring omission then by all means write an article and have the link to it posted on this page. You'll need to verify independently whether or not it is indeed "a classic", your point of view is irrelevant. Dick G (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thank you. Actually just saw this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_to_the_Siren (the Tim Buckley song referred to on that page is highlighted in red - signifying that there is no specific article on the song: however it is acknowledged, in a sense, as a notable song by mentioning that it has been covered by others). The fact that the page above exists means that the song should therefore - perhaps? - be mentioned in the Siren disambiguation page. Incidentally, I notice that you write: "I would expect someone to have written an article on it by now". I'm sure you don't need reminding that your point of view is also, of course, irrelevant. Your assured and confident point also assumes that this is a good, complete and reliable encyclopedia. If it were, we wouldn't need these talk pages. One could argue from your point the following: It's not mentioned on Wikipedia. Therefore it is unimportant. Although this is of course ridiculous, I still come along to try and rectify it. Whether a song is a classic or not is also largely subjective: there are classic songs that are somewhat obscure, and classics like, say, Bohemian Rhapsody, that are famous. Lord knows how one would find independent verification that the song is a classic. How do we verify that red is red? Sometimes we just know. Over at lastfm.com, the song has been listened to 37,561 times - there are enough people on the web referring to the song as a classic, and the fact that is has been covered by scores of musicians should be some kind of clue. Actually, the fact that there's no page for the song on Wikipedia is irrelevant, and has no absolutely no bearing on the the fact that it is a timeless classic. It merely brings to attention the fact that this encyclopedia is sometimes as unreliable as its critics suggest. I won't write the article because I don't like the clubby atmosphere here, and the way that it often appears that Wikipedia regulars don't like strangers or "newbies". I merely occasionally turn up to offer suggestions. If you've never heard the song (which seems apparent), that is your loss, and I suggest that you rectify this immediately. After listening to it, you can thank me here. Although that's probably against the rules.
Thanks again.- Apologies if the response antagonised, it was not meant to do so. It is a shame that you do not wish to add the article since you feel strongly enough about it. I simply wanted to draw your attention to two of the key tenets of Wikipedia that are verifiability and notability. Together they form a complex and subjective field as you rightly point out but in the present case there should be enough 'verifiable' comment in music trade periodicals, radio airplay lists etc. to identify the song as 'notable'. I hope you continue to stay around in the project and maybe find inspiration enough to write the article. I started a number of articles myself purely out of astonishment that Wiki didn't already have a piece on them so I certainly don't actively subscribe to the view that 'if it's not here, it's not worth anything' - even if my opening gambit was couched in similar terms - and of course I wasn't suggesting that by not having an article already it must follow that the song could not be a classic. Let's list it as a red link on the disambig page and hope someone is bold enough to take it on. Dick G (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Figure I jumped onto my high horse a little too rapidly there. Perhaps I should dive in here sometime. For the greater good, now and then we all have to get a little chlorine in our eyes. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.67.143 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies if the response antagonised, it was not meant to do so. It is a shame that you do not wish to add the article since you feel strongly enough about it. I simply wanted to draw your attention to two of the key tenets of Wikipedia that are verifiability and notability. Together they form a complex and subjective field as you rightly point out but in the present case there should be enough 'verifiable' comment in music trade periodicals, radio airplay lists etc. to identify the song as 'notable'. I hope you continue to stay around in the project and maybe find inspiration enough to write the article. I started a number of articles myself purely out of astonishment that Wiki didn't already have a piece on them so I certainly don't actively subscribe to the view that 'if it's not here, it's not worth anything' - even if my opening gambit was couched in similar terms - and of course I wasn't suggesting that by not having an article already it must follow that the song could not be a classic. Let's list it as a red link on the disambig page and hope someone is bold enough to take it on. Dick G (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thank you. Actually just saw this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_to_the_Siren (the Tim Buckley song referred to on that page is highlighted in red - signifying that there is no specific article on the song: however it is acknowledged, in a sense, as a notable song by mentioning that it has been covered by others). The fact that the page above exists means that the song should therefore - perhaps? - be mentioned in the Siren disambiguation page. Incidentally, I notice that you write: "I would expect someone to have written an article on it by now". I'm sure you don't need reminding that your point of view is also, of course, irrelevant. Your assured and confident point also assumes that this is a good, complete and reliable encyclopedia. If it were, we wouldn't need these talk pages. One could argue from your point the following: It's not mentioned on Wikipedia. Therefore it is unimportant. Although this is of course ridiculous, I still come along to try and rectify it. Whether a song is a classic or not is also largely subjective: there are classic songs that are somewhat obscure, and classics like, say, Bohemian Rhapsody, that are famous. Lord knows how one would find independent verification that the song is a classic. How do we verify that red is red? Sometimes we just know. Over at lastfm.com, the song has been listened to 37,561 times - there are enough people on the web referring to the song as a classic, and the fact that is has been covered by scores of musicians should be some kind of clue. Actually, the fact that there's no page for the song on Wikipedia is irrelevant, and has no absolutely no bearing on the the fact that it is a timeless classic. It merely brings to attention the fact that this encyclopedia is sometimes as unreliable as its critics suggest. I won't write the article because I don't like the clubby atmosphere here, and the way that it often appears that Wikipedia regulars don't like strangers or "newbies". I merely occasionally turn up to offer suggestions. If you've never heard the song (which seems apparent), that is your loss, and I suggest that you rectify this immediately. After listening to it, you can thank me here. Although that's probably against the rules.
Split?
editThis page is way too long; I think it should be split it into separate dabs for "Siren", "Sirens", and "The Siren". It should also not duplicate links found on Syren (disambiguation). I'm prepared to get my hands dirty; I'm currently cleaning up incoming links anyway. Objections? Noym (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think splitting singular/plural is very helpful. I also don't think splitting based on definite article is very helpful either, but seems slightly less problematic than singular/plural. I agree about not duplicating Syren. Sirene could also be separated, as well as partial title matches like "Song to the Siren". older ≠ wiser 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Righto. I'll start by separating out the Syrens and the Sirenes and dropping the partial matches. Noym (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Siren which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Siren (noisemaker) which you may be interested in -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Siren (mythology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)