Talk:Tin Pan Alley

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2018 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Why Songwriters knocked on doors ??

The article says "Songwriters would literally bang on the doors of Tin Pan Alley businesses to get new material."

I'm guessing this really means "to get their new material published"?? Michael Hurwicz (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the name

So nobody ever wondered if the term "tin pan" stood for, I dunno, an actual pan maybe? Made of a cheap metal like that used for tin cans? Nobody ever realized the allusion to a tool that, back when a different kind of goldrush began at tin pan alley, had been a common tool used to get rich? Is there really not a single source likening the row of publishers offices seated along the street next to each other each day trying to hit it big, to a row of gold miners seated along a river next to each other, each day panning for gold trying to hit it big? This has never occurred to anyone? Not once? Sure the anecdotal "evidence": "It sounds like a tin CAN, that's why I will call it tin PAN" makes perfect sense, not. Standing proof that, if you only repeat a lie often enough ... It still remains a lie. Just saying! 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 2003:CA:3F0C:73A8:C94:9DA:2C9B:73F6 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced

Hi @Beyond My Ken:,

Did you forget an edit summary of some kind with your revert? If you're intending to reference the unsourced entries I understand you reverted my removal. Kind regards and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Beyond My Ken:, is everything alright? You replied but then reverted. Take your time replying if you need some time, there's no rush. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, everything is fine, thank you for your concern. I just realized that my reply was too sharp and did not fully cover my reasoning, which follows:

Unlike what is commonly believed, WP:V does not require that all information be verified, it requires that all information be verifiable, and this is done through the presentation of supporting WP:reliable sources. (A recent RfC seeking to change the wording to "verified" received an overwhelming percentage of "oppose" votes and did not succeed.) Also not commonly understood is that such information for verification is not required to be presented in the form of formal references, although that is the usual way of going about it. A mention of the source for verification can legitimately come in the text of the information, and this can be found throughout the encyclopedia, usually in the form of "Professor Joan Smith, in her book The Kingdom of the Quails, writes that XXXXXXX...." This is an acceptable presentation of a reliable source -- although many editors choose when they see this format to add a formal reference.

In the case of the "In popular culture" section of this article, all of the entries have a specific reference to the source of the information, which is therefore verifiable, and satisfies the requirement of WP:V. No source can be more reliable for information about the content of a media object than the object itself. So long as the entry does not interpret or analyze the information, but describes it in a straigtforward manner, there is no need for an additional reference.

For the above reasons I restored the information to the list, as the entries are not "unsourced" they are simply sourced in an unusual -- but perfectly legitimate -- manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Beyond My Ken:, sorry for my late reply. You know, I don't think that in my 16 years of Wikipedia editing I've seen anyone put it so eloquently like that. I've never looked at it like that. Thank you for explaining. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)