Talk:Lavender's Blue

(c)
Er.. careful possible copyright problems with this song.

Words and Music by Larry Morey and Eliot Daniel c. 1949. Mintguy 00:04 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)


 * The article says it's a 17th century folk song. What's the source for this credit? It doesn't seem to be accurate. I don't think there's a problem here. --Camembert


 * http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Lyrics/1959/921959b.html;
 * http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/7840/lavender.htm;
 * http://persweb.direct.ca/fstringe/oz/l40.html;
 * http://www.romanization.com/personal/randy/bestsong.html;
 * http://www.pianospot.com/1700607.htm


 * There's more... I don't know this ins and outs of copyright law but but I just thought I'd mention it. Mintguy 00:04 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

That would appear to be a version written for a film of, as you say, around 1949. I think they've adapted the old folk song (which isn't copyrighted, of course), and added some extra bits. Looks like the version quoted at this article is an old, uncopyrighted version of lyrics, with not much in common with the Morey/Daniel version. So we're OK. --Camembert

17th century folk songs can't be copyrighted (or 19th-century ones, either). New arrangements (i.e., new verses, new melodies, etc) can. The verses "If your dilly dilly heart feels a dilly dilly way", etc., are probably protected by the 1948 copyright, but the verses borrowed from the original folk song can't be "recaptured" by a new copyright. --Len

Lavender
Why does it make less sense to have "lavender" twice? I always assumed it refered to the flowers (blue), then the leaves (green). The flowers of rosemary are white ... -- Tarquin

The part of lavender for which it is used as an herb is blue; the part of rosemary for which it is used as an herb, the leaves, are green. But I'm not married to this observation. Feel free to work with it a bit. --Len

Maybe the colour of lavender leaves can fall into that part of the spectrum which some people call blue, some green. -- t
 * To me "lavender's blue, rosemary's green" makes a helluva lot more sense than "lavender's blue, lavender's green". Maikel 10:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tarquin. Sixty two years ago my Grandmother explained to me that in the spring a field of lavender is green and as it flowers the field turns blue. Kaywin Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.225.22 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Marillion
Changed Marillion from Scottish to English Band. Marillion have always been based in Aylesbury (Near Oxford) England. www.marillion.com

Dilly dilly
What's the "dilly dilly" bit supposed to mean? Is it the pet name for his lover, or just a nonsensical interjection, like "Yo" in rap? Is there a scientific term for interjections such as "dilly dilly" or "hey nonny nonny"? Maikel 10:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical reference
I have added a historical reference from James Halliwell for this. The site reproduction also has a picture of the music (also dating to 1849) as well as a modern rendition in a .midi file. Modified the text to reflect Halliwell's comments. [Presscom] 7 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Presscom (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Literary Refrence
Okay, I'm lost. I inserted a note that said that Andre Norton's 'Lavender-Green Magic' used this song as a central theme, and linked to Andre Norton's page and her bibliography. I can only assume that my edit was backed out because there was no link to a reference provided: in my foolishness, I suppose I assumed that specifically saying that a book contained a reference was, you know, considered a reliable reference.

So, how exactly should I insert a line here that says that this song is a central theme of Lavender-Green Magic? Do I have to go and find an article online that discusses the use of the song in Lavender-Green Magic, because otherwise indicating that something is contained in a book is considered 'original research'? Do I have to provide a page reference to a particular printing of Lavender-Green Magic where the theme is present, in a bibliography reference? (Which would, in essence, be 'pages 1 to 167' or whatever the maximum page number is, but I'd be happy to lie and just put a small number of pages in there if it would make people happier.) Do I have to provide a link to an online copy of the book (which of course does not exist because it is a copyrighted work)? Do I have to create an entire wikipedia entry on the book itself, and mention the song in the entry, as has been done with the other work that is referenced here?

I will note that on all of the other pages that I have seen such references on on Wikipedia, none of them require any kind of documentation just to add a note that something exists in a book, so whoever is maintaing this page is performing, shall we say, well above and beyond the call of duty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.239.5 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the edit to see why it was removed. It looks like it was removed due to no references.  There was only a link to a bibliography page.  This would not be a good reference because no where does it state that Lavender Blue was a central theme.  You are right that it would be best to find a song that discusses the use of the song in Lavender-Green Magic.  The reason a reference is needed because anyone could say something is a central theme of a book and be making it up and it is better for Wikipedia if there is verifiable sources.


 * I would like to add that you mentioned you have sources other Wikipedia pages this way. I would recommend going back and adding references to those pages as well to help making Wikipedia a well-sourced website.  Some pages don't have as many people watching the pages so that might be why it has not be brought up before to you. LongLiveMusic (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So, then, just to be absolutely clear, if I were to say 'The book Lavender-Green Magic by Andre Norton contains references to this song on pages 7, 22, and 207,' this would be deleted also, because I do not cite any scholarly articles that state that those references exist? Because the original work itself is not considered a 'reference'? Or, to put it another way, if I were to assert that The Joy of Cooking were a cookbook, without references except to the book itself, I assume that would be deleted as well? Because, like any sensible person reading The Joy of Cooking would conclude that it is a cookbook, any sensible person reading Lavender-Green Magic, with its multiple references to the song, the name of the book, the overarching king/queen references, etc, could in no way avoid the conclusion that it is based on the song.

But, hey. I've known for a while that Wikipedia has been heading in this direction. It's nice to see you've finally reached your destination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.47.156 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Article title
Here we have an article called "Lavender Blue". It begins "Lavender's Blue," (perhaps sometimes called "Lavender Blue,")...does anyone else think this should be moved to Lavender's Blue? Eman 235 / talk 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As there has been no reply, and this was 12 days ago, I decided to move it. Eman 235 / talk 19:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Factbox?
I don't see how this article justifies a factbox about Henry James's The Turn of the Screw (1898). The Benjamin Britten opera based on this work is only one of many media that feature the song. It seems quite redundant -  unless it's vandalism. Valetude (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am with you on this one.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

List of recordings
A list of recordings, many of them unreferenced, has just been restored to the article. Previously it was challenged since 2017 by a template similar to the one that has just been replaced there stating that unreferenced items will be deleted. Per WP:MISC, and specifically MOS:POPCULT, I replaced that unsatisfactory list with text, as recommended by the style guide. Replacing that with a list again is not an option and, having brought the matter up on the talk page, I shall have no hesitation in taking the matter up with the administrators who drew up the guidance in the first place. Let me point out to that deleting the replaced list just once was in no way vandalism. He has been an editor long enough to know not only that but the duty of courtesy to other editors. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Check the edit history. You deleted this section twice, not once, and the second time after User:Herostratus restored. That means you are entering into an edit war. That's why I suggested you take to the Talk page to discuss with him. Nothing discourteous about that - in fact I was recommending the courtesy of achieving consensus for removal before you do so. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first reversion was last year and mentioned response to the 2017 template as the reason. You better get acquainted with the the WP:3RR policy before making accusations of edit warring. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice on how to become a better editor. I really appreciate it. But it would also be nice if when you make your edits, it doesn't just restore dead links that I'd previously replaced and introduce poor grammar, such as starting sentences with "And". Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to be a grammar scold at least get it right. Starting a sentence with "And" is perfectly acceptable and common.


 * I was referring to this example of beginning a sentence with "And" which was created from Sweetpool50's edit, which is not good grammar: "In 1976, the early music group The City Waites recorded the original 17th-century bawdy broadside version of "Lavender's Green, Lavender's Blue" on their album Pills to Purge Melancholy. And on their 1985 album Misplaced Childhood, the British band Marillion recorded a song called "Lavender", which had lyrics derived from the folk song and became a number 5 hit on the UK singles chart. " Rodericksilly (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As to the other, if you don't like the lack of refs then add them. OK? It's easy. They're all in Discogs. There is even a template discogs that makes it easy. If Discogs wasn't a good source (it is) we wouldn't have a template. Just go to Discogs and search on the term. There's a search bar right there on the main page. See, I even did it for you. From there you can just click on the links, lay down a copy of the discogs template into the article, and copy in the number from the Discogs page. It's OK not to know this stuff, as colleagues we help each other to learn things. I put in one or two myself. I also have lots of other stuff to do, so maybe you can pitch in too, since you're interested in the article. I'll come back and do some more when I get to it. We should not delete the material, no. You mention an objection to the material itself, referencing some guideline (we have a honkin' lot of guidelines here). But maybe think of it this way. The readers who access the article (255 a day) are interested in the song. Their interest surely comes from various places and they surely have different particulars of the song that they're interested in. Maybe they are looking into Burl Ives. Maybe they are scholars looking into the Roud Folk Song Index. Maybe the are coming from an interest in the 2015 version of Cinderella where its used a lot. Maybe they're a David Bowie fanatic and want to learn about the couplet he sings at the start of Serious Moonlight. Maybe they're Fleetwoods fans and are coming from Category:The Fleetwoods songs. And so forth. Who knows? We don't. But 250 people is a lot of people. Lots of articles have fewer. Suppose 10% of the readers would find some benefit from a complete list of recordings, or a particular artist in the list -- Dinah Shore, Tommy Bruce, the City Waites, etc etc etc. Maybe it's only 5% -- that's 12 people. Every day. Day in and day out. Why do we want to tell these 12 or 25 or 50 people, every day, day in and day out, "Well we had a list of recordings. But we deleted it. Because as far as we're concerned, we don't much care about what you want, and we're too lazy to ref it." I'm not seeing the upside. We are here \to provide people with information, not prevent people from getting information. (If the question was "Well, should we spend the time and energy to make the list?" that'd be different maybe. But the list already exists. We're talking about throwing away that existing work.)

Also to point out the obvious, nobody is required to look at the info. It's at the bottom of the article. Readers are entirely free to skip it. Again, if it really is just the ref problem I'm not a huge fan of "I care about this. But rather than doing the work of fixing the problem, I'll do a driveby delete and require other editors to stop what they're working on or doing in real life and go do the work." (Oops I started a sentence with "But". I must be illiterate.) If we want to discuss the situation on the merits rather than locking horns, I think that a paragraph of text about the versions that were hits (somebody did that, and it was fine) followed by the list would be good. We could also change the list to a long text paragraph, it the list format itself if making people claw at the draperies. I've done it myself to gruntle scolds. It's not as easy to read and access individual recordings though. Herostratus (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I quote from the MOS guidance, which advises against lists: "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences." The text that I added was made up of the previously referenced items, giving context and an idea of notability, and should not have been deleted. An accompanying list of often unsourced additional items, some of them verging on being WP:OFFTOPIC betrays the intention of Wikipedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. You do have some reasonable points. Taking the first few list entries for example, formatting them as text and tweaking the wording when called for, it would be reasonable to turn them into text, like this:
 * {{talkquote|}The Burl Ives version featured in the film So Dear to My Heart was released in 1949. In 1948, Vera Lynn released a version of the song as the B side of the 78 rpm single Again], backed by Bob Farnon's orchestra. Again; the single lasted 3 weeks on the chart, peaking at #23. Sammy Kay released a version in 1949 which charted at #5 in America. Dinah Shore also released a version in 1949, which went to #1 on the Australian chart, and was the title track of her album Lavender Blue.}}
 * And so on. I don't have a strong feeling about it really. The text version looks nicer and is more compact, and is easier to read, I guess. The list version makes it a little easier to look up a particular recording I suppose. The format isn't a huge deal, to me.


 * You could also divide into a couple subsections. You could have "Hit singles" and "Other releases", or maybe "1940s-1950s recordings" and "After 1950", since the the 40s-50s seem to have been the song's peak. Or not.


 * My only objection is to deleting the material. User:Sweetpool50, sorry if I was overly ranty. I get like that. Kudos to you for standing up for your view and laying it out cogently.


 * As to the rules you cite, OK, but for my part (but its not just me) I'm not too worried about that since we have a lot of rules here (some contradicting each other), the rule you cite is just a guideline, somebody just wrote it sometime who knows who or when or why it got accepted, and they're probably mostly retired by now and how much do we want to be constrained by the dead hand of the past; and lists of recordings are very common at the end of song articles, thus it is the de facto preference of many editors, and our rules are supposed to codify best/common practice and not be prescriptive orders from on high. And there's nothing objectively wrong with the list format per se, its a matter of taste.


 * That said, it's reasonable to hold your view. Just, understand, it's basically your view, just as my view is my view. So let's see... you agree with the statement "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences."


 * Alright. Fair enough. I also agree with some of that. Mnmh, they are talking about "Cultural references" sections which are often mostly namechecking, like "In an episode of the Simpsons, Homer says 'Well lavender blue dilly dilly to you buddy'" and so forth. There's upsides and downsides to that sort of thing, and generally a cutoff where some are in and some are out is called for. It does make some people claw the draperies when they see them.


 * So but thinking it over.. I think maybe that lists of recordings of a song are pretty different from that sort of "cultural references". If you are concerned about the addition of trivia -- we all are at the margins, but we each set our margins differently -- I don't think a list of songs will attract too much of that; it'd be legit to erase entries which are on really obscure labels for instance, and if you do that the list isn't going to get too long I am confident. Unlike cultural references, which can get into the weeds a recording either exists or it doesn't, so easy peasy.


 * OK? Are we finding any common ground? Will reformatting the material into text paragraphs help? Does anyone have any objections to that that? (Leaving aside the ref'ing question for the moment.) Herostratus (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, . I'll be away for a couple of days and will give a more considered reply after my return. However, as promised, I asked advice on seeking dispute resolution and got the following: "If you can both work together, WP:DRN is best. If not, and you can frame a request in a clear way and neutral wording, WP:RfC." You and I might reach agreement, but I seem to remember the previous prose text was deleted against your advice, so we may encounter more such intransigence. Another difficulty is sourcing, since primary sources (which you were advocating via Discogs) are also deprecated, per WP:PSTS; and not everything sourced in itself needs to be included in an article. As a former encyclopaedia editor, I have a higher regard than you for guidelines, otherwise one faces anarchy and drivel. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. Sure, take your time, there's no hurry. Right I get how different people have different feelings about the rules. It's something we're not going to agree on, and if we acknowledge that we can work together fruitfully I think.


 * I don't think there was really objection to to putting the stuff in text form, or highlighting the hits in text at the beginning of the section, and so forth. I think the objection from others was just to deleting the material altogether.


 * So... as to primary sources, well... the primary/secondary/tertiary rubric is lifted whole from academic standards. We respect academic standards but we're a popular rather an academic publication and they're not really appropriate for us, at least not as a straightjacket. I believe that primary sources are deprecated (beyond slavish adhesion to what the Important People in academia do) for a couple reasons:
 * 1) They're no good for establishing notability. You can have a large high-quality article with plenty of refs, but if they're all primary refs, that doesn't demonstrate that the entity is notable. But we're not using Discogs to establish notability.
 * 2) It's easy to cherry-pick primary refs (secondary refs too tbh) to make a point. Or accidentally create a false narrative by finding some primary refs and not others. But that's not an issue here. "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source" and fine, but we're not doing that here.
 * And anyway and FWIW technically Discogs might not be a primary ref. The webpage of the actual singer or actual record label would be the primary ref. Discogs might be also since they don't list every record and don't review, I don't know; but at any rate Discogs would have no incentive to, say, inflate sales figures (as record company website might) and so on. I don't know about their fact-checking. They do have the sources at hand (since they provide pictures of it).


 * As to including, in some form... well, it's certainly possible to swamp an article with a huge collection of bare facts, bury important facts under an avalanche of lesser ones, and so on. (Thats why IMO an paragraph at the beginning of the section, describing just the hits, might be good.) But in my view this article isn't swamped, it's not too large, the info we're talking about is at the end where its easy for the reader to skip, there are few enough entries that nothing is being avalanched, and so I'm not seeing any upside to not having it since we already do.


 * Well think it over, to be continued, no hurry Herostratus (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Respect for guidelines is not something we will agree to disagree on, . Guidelines are vital for the health of WP and deliberate violation would eventually end up on WP:ANI. We're not there yet, but are close to taking the deletion to WP:RFC, so let's come to some primary decision now.


 * The deletion of a sourced paragraph was against policy and that should go back immediately. Not, as you suggest, with exactly that wording. It can be reworded or added to, so long as it's not just a list with conjunctions between. Into it can go any other items which are adequately sourced in the present list; if you care to hunt up their appearance in Discogs, do so. We can transfer the other items to the Talk page if you like but, per the template, I'm challenging the rest right now and they'll be deleted from the main article. The compromise I'm suggesting is based on the model of the "Other contexts" section of The Scorpion and the Frog, which was the agreed replacement of another off-topic, often-unsourced trivia-magnet list.


 * I disagree with your argument on the basis of WP:OSE that a list of recordings is a function of WP. The list is longer than any other section in the article and that's WP:UNDUE. Again, performances have to be notable; the addition of a couplet to a song on another subject by David Bowie does not qualify. Finally, the article is about the rhyme, not about performances of it, and listing all of them verges on being WP:OFFTOPIC. What I'm proposing, therefore, is that we work on adequate wording for the restored prose text first of all, since we appear to agree on that, and then decide what to do with the other items. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, User:Sweetpool50, but I stopped reading after your second sentence, "Guidelines are vital for the health of WP and deliberate violation would eventually end up on WP:ANI" (emphasis added). That's not how we roll here, that's highly inflammatory, is a threat, and stop it. Many guidelines are superseded either often or in particular circumstances. We're not paper shufflers here and this is not a the DMV or a Theory X organization. Many guidelines are silly, many were put in place 15 years ago by small group, since long retired, and we are not bound by the dead hand of the past. And even important and widely-used guideline such as WP:GNG are superseded in both directions if the occasion calls for it. See WP:BURO -- a policy.


 * But most of all, guidelines are supposed to codify common/best practice. My experience is that common practice is to indeed have such lists as I have seen many.


 * Maybe your arguments are good, but as I say I didn't read them and won't until you calm down. We're not deciding the fate of Lyon here. Herostratus (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I asked you to come up with a draft prose section. If you won't, I'll try, but I must say that your temporising appears irresponsible to me. And stop talking down to me too. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-edited section
Since we have partial agreement to restore the original paragraph about recordings, I have transferred a slightly rewritten and resourced version, so we can see how it looks. The rest of the list is left in place for now, although the template (which I did not author) warns - "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture, providing citations to reliable, secondary sources, rather than simply listing appearances. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." My instinct would be to move all the unsourced material over to the Talk page here, but let's see what other editors can find that goes beyond original research. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, very well, this is fine. I have no objection to rendering the rest of the list of recordings into prose also. There's benefits and downside either way, and either way is fine, you seem to prefer prose, so let's do that.


 * I've a suggestion for a tweak, which is to put the recordings in this order, probably in three separate paragraphs, like this:
 * The Burl Ives version. I'm entirely sure that this was the revival of the song. All the others followed after this. It's sky-is-blue self evident, witness the plethora of pop versions that followed where there'd been none before.


 * The important versions -- basically, the hits.


 * The other recordings.


 * So, (and also putting in some info re uses and versions that weren't records), something like this:















There's a lot here, and a lot to think about. I did recast some stuff as I was going thru the material. This was exhausting and I'll have more to say, but later. Herostratus (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's looking good. I'd make the following observations.

&&&
 * 1) Since the focus is widened, the section title of Recordings is no longer applicable. How about Revival instead?
 * 2) I'm sure I've seen references to Ives' reviving the song and that needs a source. So far all I've found is this.
 * 3) Details like "(losing to "Baby, It's Cold Outside" from Neptune's Daughter)" are completely off-topic. The focus here is the song, not recording history.
 * 4) Where performances are of lesser notability, we should condense the information to just names and dates - something like:
 * 5) Not all appearances of the song are noteworthy, especially brief mentions that do not contribute to a motif. Where they do, we definitely need a source to establish this, like this description of The Ordinary Princess.
 * 6) Mention of appearances in nursery rhyme collections and the like is too trivial. Besides, we mention sanitized versions from 1801 and can just expand that earlier mention with a sentence saying they continue to the present day, often in different and longer or shorter versions.
 * 1) Dammit here's a complete list of covers including what looks like a Swedish version. We can't list the whole lot, it would be ridiculous. It needs some serious streamlining.
 * 2) Another thought. Perhaps some consideration should be given to the ways in which the Ives version differs from the nursery versions. In terms of the idea of 'revival' we can easily spot copies of Ives since they'll be attributed to the Daniel/Morey team.


 * Alright. This is fine.


 * re 1) Yes, absolutely. "Revival" is fine, "After 1949" would be fine too.


 * re 2) Well we're not saying "Ives' version started a revival". It did, but we don't need to say it since we're demonstrating it. The reader can figure it out. So there's no ref needed, right?


 * re 3) Fine, I suppose. The article's not too long. But yeah I see your point on the particulars of the song it lost to, I guess. I mean it makes the point "Wow, it lost, but to a damn famous and long-lasting song". We can't say that but we can demonstrate it. Does it matter that it lost to a great song and not a forgettable mediocrity? I dunno. Maybe, to some readers. But either way. it's fine. On that particular point. There's no "Details like X are completely off-topic", each one has to be looked at separately. I'm for including more info not less, generally.


 * re 4) I mean, I suppose. I think that Lieber & Stoller being involved matters, and since they're very famous it tells a lot of readers "Oh, them; I get a sense of how the song was probably arranged". Other than that, yeah, I'm fine with your condensed version. I mean, I don't know to best serve the reader. Some readers who are benefitted by learning that Vera Lynn recorded a version might also benefit from knowing who's orchestra backed it. Maybe not, I dunno.


 * re 5) Yes, right. And I did remove most of those. Formerly, there were like 20+ entries for appearences in films and so forth. We don't actually need most of those and they're just clutter, I think we agree. Kept in ones like Cinderalla because that's a big-deal movie and it's used throughout, and like that. Right, sources are needed...


 * re 6) Well, the thing about "nursery rhyme collections and the like is too trivial", not sure about "and the like". It depends. As far as the "Hey it was the title of this book and that book and so on", we're really just demonstrating that it's just a really well-known song. I don't see what's wrong with that.


 * re 7) (number 1 again) Well, I think that "is/is not bluelinked" is often a good rubric for these things. First of all, it's a quick-and-dirty measure of notability (if you don't have an article here by now, how notable can you be), it gives us as editors a GO/NOGO bright line so each entry doesn't have to be pondered, and it has a link to offer the reader so there's some value there. I think editors use this standard generally (also for "notable residents" sections of places), altho it's not written down anywhere I guess. And when they don't they should.


 * So anyways, Dorothy Olson is not bluelinked, she doesn't need to be mentioned. Ditto Bill Hays, Terrea Lea, and probably others. So we wouldn't be adding that many new entries. The new ones that are bluelinked, well -- well hey Mary Martin recorded it. Whoa the Merseybeats recorded it, which is step outside the American Songbook realm and tells us something about how wide rannging its popularity was, I guess. It's not a big deal but it's not nothing. Readers who aren't interested in the various recordings won't be reading the section anyway; readers who are reading the section are interested in the various recordings, or some particular ones, so let's give them all the bluelinked ones.


 * re 8) (number 2 again), yes fine. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Recordings section, proposed finalisation
Sorry, I got side-tracked, both by health problems and other research. Let's see if we can establish a final form for the Recordings section on the basis of what we've already agreed. It would be nice if you did the initial draft but I'll try if you'd prefer (always bearing in mind that I'm less of an inclusionist than you!) I'm thinking of doing some more work on textual appearances in earlier sections. Originally the refrain was "diddle diddle" but by the time of Halliwell (1849) there is the "dilly dilly" variant eventually preferred by most recordings. Might we mention the City Waites bawdy recording back then too or must we reserve it for the chronological account we're planning?

I'd like the para's of this section to be themed if we can. The first could concentrate on Ives and successful copies of him; others might be grouped round musical styles (rock, rhythm and blues, jazz and so on). All mentions should be sourced, so we needn't go into much more detail; interested readers can then click on the link to find more details than the who and when.

I'm a bit jumpy about starting another section on 'popular' appearances in other media. Part of my research (via Advanced Book Search) uncovered incidental references in 1890-1910 novels where the rhyme serves no thematic purpose. The song, being as much part of popular lore as proverbs and idioms, is bound to occur all over the place and I'd question the usefulness (and possibility) of listing all allusions. Anyway, let's finalise the recordings section first and get that in place before planning anything else. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Portrayal in Bridgerton
This song also features in the 2022 second season of Bridgerton, in episode 3 (A Bee in Your Bonnet) at approximately 29min 20s. Is this worth making an entry of in the Revival section? 1.141.218.157 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not notable Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)