Talk:Jamaica Farewell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What it was about[edit]

Hey hey Hoary, do you mind explaining what that was about?


...posted at 07:42, 2005 May 31 Loom91

Sorry, you've lost me. -- Hoary 09:07, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

On the Controversy Surrounding Inclusion of a Hyper-Text link to a Usenet Group on the Song under Discussion[edit]

I definitely think the existence of a Usenet group for a given topic deserves mention, even if it is at the moment devoid of information. Its very inclusion will turn it into an asset for Wikipedia. Loom91 09:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I zapped the link to the forum site because that site appeared to offer no information whatever about the song "Jamaica Farewell". If I'm wrong, please specify the precise URL of a message that does tell us more about this song.
An additional reason for zapping the link as you first posted it (and as you readded it) was that it was phrased as an invitation to do something. While I sympathize with your desire to get intelligent people to come to the forum and post intelligent messages, thus flushing out the spam, this is not encyclopedic material. -- Hoary 09:07, 2005 May 31 (UTC) ..... moved down here and slightly edited at the same time as I added the following:
Moreover, I don't see how the inclusion of a link to an information-free site can be an asset for WP. -- Hoary 09:25, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
It's not an asset for WP now, but its inclusion in WP will guarantee that it will not stay information free any longer, thus it'll become an asset to WP. It's not a straight buyout, but an investment.Loom91 09:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loom91, you have added a link to your forum three times. I have removed it three times. Why? It's worthless: as you said the last time you added it, "it does not contain any information". It does not match any of the criteria for What should be linked to. Please do not add it again (at least until it offers a substantial amount of information); if you do so, you can be assured that it will be removed again, and the readdition may be interpreted as deliberately disruptive. -- Hoary 03:32, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Loom91 has just added it yet again so I have removed it yet again. -- Hoary 14:21, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I see that he has just added a link to another content-free forum ("user group"). I'm removing it. -- Hoary 13:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seem to have made a slip there: the link that Loom91 is so eager to insert does indeed seem to be a user group. But it seems to have no traffic (or, via Yahoo, content). Am I wrong here? If I'm right, and there's no traffic (content), then it's for Loom91 to explain here how its addition to the article improves the article. -- Hoary 09:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give me a few days, I'll see that it gets content. Loom91 08:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is still no content in the group surely the link should be removed? James Fryer 23:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I hadn't noticed that it was back. OK, I'll remove it again. -- Hoary 04:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loom91 added it again. He/she says it's "not worthless", but has not provided any reasoning for this. Meanwhile, I'll comment on James Fryer's edit comment One post does not make the group worthwhile. Get some real traffic - say 30 posts - then re-add the link. I'd disagree: user groups on this kind of subject (as opposed to, say, "howto" subjects) aren't worth linking to even if they're active. If the user group throws up new and verifiable information about the song, by all means integrate this within the WP article. Otherwise, skip. -- Hoary 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The official Wikipedia policy says (as I'm sure you know)

"What should be linked to Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews."

It clearly says that even when the content has been integrated into the article, the link should remain as reference. It further states that sites with relevant content unsuitable for inclusion to the encyclopedia should be linked to, in this case the lyrics of the song. I think this two points together justify the inclusion of the link, and based on these I'm reinserting the link. Loom91 08:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Jimmy Buffet[edit]

Thank you Hoary, the Jimmy Buffet comment is just right now. However I'm still disatisfied about the group link. ....added at 09:14, 2005 May 31 by Loom91


Just wondering what makes this a "calypso". Thanks. Guettarda 14:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. I don't think I've ever heard the song; and if I have, it hasn't registered. If you're confident that it isn't a calypso, feel free to edit accordingly. -- Hoary 02:49, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
The tone and the tempo are all wrong for calypso...but I don't know the formal definition of what is a calypso. It's one of those things that you know when you see (hear)...I know there are formal definitions, but I don't know what they are. Guettarda 03:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not having heard it, I don't know about the tempo; but yes, the tone doesn't seem right. You know much more about calypso than I do: does the stuff in the article about the alleged origins of the song mean anything to you? -- Hoary 03:52, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Not familiar with the background. I only know the Jimmy Buffet version (though for some reason I thought it was by John Denver - easy enough to confuse those two, IMO). Not that Belafonte has any real credibility for me - the point of calypso is to write what you sing. Belafonte slowed things down to the point where they are almost impossible to recognise as calypso anyway. So, in short, I am the wrong person to ask the question. Guettarda 04:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what qualifies as a calypso and what doesn't, but Belafonte sure considered this as Calypso, though as he was only the singer his intenion is secondary. The only one who can truly give verdict on this one is Lord Burgess. Maybe someone from NY can ask him? Loom91 12:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to add to this, calypso has a very specific meaning when applied to the music of Trinidad, but a wider meaning in popular music. In the 1950s "calypso craze" many West Indian songs which were not calypso were marketed as such. Many of them were mentos (a similar musical form from Jamaica) e.g. Belafonte's "Jackass Song". The song in question is strictly a Jamaican ballad but in the context of popular song it is safe to call it a calypso. 11:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usenet link[edit]

I have removed a link to the Google Group about this song, because it violates the Wikipedia:External links guideline. There are a total of three messages, the most recent from six months ago. The first two are an intro and an exhortation to readers to ensure that the link remains in this article. Please do not add it back without explaining why it is appropriate according to the Wikipedia guideline for external linking. Tuf-Kat 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what about Marty Robbins?[edit]

Marty Robbins, arguably more famous than others listed, also sang this song.2605:E000:AA41:CD00:ED43:C9DF:2C7C:1A6A (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamaica Farewell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]