Talk:Come On Eileen

Reel Big Fish

Every version of "Come On Eileen" I've heard that was supposed to be performed by Reel Big Fish was really performed by Save Ferris. Is there really a Reel Big Fish version out there? -cprompt 18:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I thought the exact same thing. Save Ferris is always miscredited as No Doubt, too...I doubt there are RBF or No Doubt versions. Can anyone provide some proof?Atticus2020 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No Doubt didn't do a cover of this song. I always find files for it that say No Doubt, but it is really Save Ferris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevelander223 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why the grammatically correct title redirects to a grammatically incorrect one? Is the title of the song really a reference to performing an act "on Eileen" as opposed to someone saying "Come On" to her? Yeesh...can someone who knows what they're doing fix this, please? (by user Dewelar, 9/27/07)

I'm pretty sure that the incorrect punctuation is the "true name" of the song. It's much the same with the name of the band -- Standard Written English would insist that "Dexys" have an apostrophe in it, but that apostrophe is absent on official material like the album cover. 86.163.203.106 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Moore

The article states ""Believe Me If All Those Endearing Young Charms", by Matthew Locke." This song was actually writtn by Thomas Moore. (79.190.69.142 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Too-Rye-Ay

What does "too-rye-ay" mean? AmericanLeMans (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. Just nonsense syllables. 91.107.186.14 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Come On Eileen like jingle.

During 2006 for the Mexican market, Pepsi launches Pepsi Retro a sugar cane and cola nuts soft drink and the TV spot campaign used like jingle the begginings notes of the song.[1]Jaboolanee (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The bit about one hit wonders...

After the sentence stating this was their only US hit there is a bit pointing out they had already had a UK Hit with Geno and that they went on to have more UK hits, why is there a citation needed tag as going to the bottom of the page and clicking on the next chronilogical single in the info box tells us they had a record hit number 5 the next month? I'm removing it as it makes the infomation look dubious when it isn't.(Morcus (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC))

The band Dexys Midnight Runners were hardly a one-hit wonder band in the United Kingdom - they had a whole series of chart successes here in the United Kingdom. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is still an implication in many parts of the article that Dexys were a one-hit wonder, because that's what they were in the US. This "all the world's America" perspective infests WP music articles and is very irritating 'overseas'. --Ef80 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Come On Eileen → Come on Eileen

I was about to convert all mentions of "Come On Eileen" in this article to "Come on Eileen" and move the article per MOS:CT ("prepositions containing four letters or fewer" are not capitalized), but thought that perhaps this change may not be uncontroversial. MOS:CT also states "For titles in languages other than English, the capitalization used in the original language is applied". Although this article makes NO mention that it is intended to apply British, the group is British and so there is a possibility that British naming conventions apply. And since I am unfamiliar with British naming conventions, I am leaving this suggestion on the talk page for now for editors who are more familiar with the artist's articles and the preferred language (and that language's rules). This process will be completed if there are no clear reasons why this change should not take place. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 05:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

After doing a quick web-search, every occurrence of this song that I saw had it listed as "Come On Eileen". I would therefore oppose changing the song name unless there is evidence that "Come on Eileen" is indeed the preferred title. Doniago (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather base the opinions of what the formats should be on actual policies and true grammar rules rather than what other random websites do.. To be honest, the only reason why this came to my attention was that I base all of my formats in my MP3 collection on Wikipedia formats since there's the set of style rules in place. When I wanted to play this song, "Come On Eileen", I saw "Come on Closer" (by Jem) next to it and the formatting error jumped right out at me. It's not super important or anything, but it's like when you see signs that say "Open Tonite Until 11pm!" instead of "tonight". Sure, it's an "accepted" version, but it's technically wrong and the more we just let things go (especially on an encyclopedia), the more the actual worth of it decreases. I think we need to find a British literary professor to clear up the capitalization rules for titles. ;) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with going by policies and grammar in general, but we're talking about the title of a song here, and oftentimes those have nothing to do with rules of grammar at all, much less WP policies. It's my humble opinion that the song should be capitalized as per the actual title of the song. I'll agree that what a "random website" does isn't pertinent, so the question is, what do credible websites that could serve as reliable sources do, and do they do so consistently? Doniago (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Doniago, and I'd argue that "on" in the song title isn't a preposition anyway: the title is urging "Eileen" to "come on" [edit: though I imagine the band were aware of the potential double meaning]. MOS:CT explicitly says: "the following words should be capitalized:...words which have the same form as prepositions, but are not being used specifically as prepositions" (the example given there is "Walk On"). I reckon "Come On Eileen" is correctly capitalised as it is (and for what it's worth "Come on Closer" is wrongly capitalised, but I'm not proposing a change to that). [Edit: I couldn't find my vinyl copy of Too Rye Ay on which the song first appeared; on the CD version it's written as "Come On Eileen" in the track list (but as "Come on Eileen" in the accompanying booklet), and in the booklet accompanying the compilation CD Let's Make This Precious: The Best of Dexys Midnight Runners it's shown as "Come On Eileen"...so even the band's own issues are inconsistent.] Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lyrics of the song

The full lyrics of the song can be found on this website:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/come-on-eileen-lyrics-dexys-midnight-runners.html

As you can see from these lyrics, the song begins with a reference to Johnny Ray - I would like to know who he is. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's Johnnie Ray, not Johnny. I'll correct the added lyrics. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Composition

It seems that nobody can agree on who wrote this song! So far I've found three different composition attributions, two in this article and the third in the Too-Rye-Ay album article.

1. First paragraph: The first paragraph of this article attributes the song to Kevin Rowland, "Big" Jim Paterson, Micky Billingham and Billy Adams.
2. Sidebar: The sidebar of this article lists the writers as Kevin Rowland, Jim "Big Jim" Paterson, Billy Adams, and Roger Mann.
3. Too-Rye-Ay album article: The Too-Rye-Ay article list the writers as Kevin Rowland, Jim Paterson, and Billy Adams.

To make matters worse, nobody can agree on what to call Jim Paterson, either: Jim Paterson, "Big" Jim Paterson, or Jim "Big Jim" Paterson.

The Dexys Midnight Runners website, lists the composers as Kevin Rowland, Jim Paterson, and Billy Adams, and I am, therefore, changing the information in this article to match that, using the name Jim Paterson throughout. According to their website, he is sometimes known as Big Jimmy Paterson. Given that none of the uses on this page match that, I'm avoiding it entirely. The use of Rowland, Paterson, and Adams as composers matches the information given on the Too-Rye-Ay album page. Ge0nk (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference 7 Problem

The reference 7 should be supporting the fact that Eileen did not exist, but actually does not - the songfact articles mentions in the main body of the article that Eileen was indeed a real person and inspired the song. So which is true ? And if anything, that reference is anyway not accurate with the WIkipedia summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.39.13 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Come On Eileen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170109053925/http://www.worldcharts.co.uk/chartfeatures/aus/aus80.htm to http://www.worldcharts.co.uk/chartfeatures/aus/aus80.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

COVID parody notability

Is a random YouTube parody with a million views really notable and worthy of inclusion in this article? Jbbdude (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be if it received significant coverage from sources. As that doesn't appear to be the case, I've removed it. WP:IPCV or WP:SONGCOVER, whichever you prefer. DonIago (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doniago and Jbbdude: It certainly did receive coverage; I linked to MSN, which is one of the biggest news aggregators in the world. WP:SONGCOVER, which you reference, specifically requires that "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right". Being covered by a major mainstream source certainly satisfies notability. Please undo your revert, or state why you believe MSN doesn't satisfy notability or RS. Drummerdg (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drummerdg:As you noted, MSN is a news aggregator. The article you linked was published via Newsflare, a user generated content site which is, itself, not notable and is certainly not a "major mainstream source". I have been unable to find other significant coverage, aside from one two-line AOL/Yahoo article featuring the YouTube clip embedded. Not every mildly viral video on the internet is notable per WP guidelines. Thousands of covers and parodies are uploaded daily. The phenomenon of song parodies relating to current events, or even to COVID in particular, is notable. But this is far from the notability levels of a Randy Rainbow, The Gregory Brothers, Tom Lehrer, Capitol Steps etc. Jbbdude (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but if you look around, you'll find no shortage of similarly notable (i.e. not Gregory Brothers famous, but well known) parodies. For instance, I added one here (edit), and not only has nobody taken issue with that, others have in fact expanded on it. So I think there's some nuance here. I don't believe my addition harmed the article. Drummerdg (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide the same or greater quality sources with regards to this particular parody? Also, please don't make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-based arguments. DonIago (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a bizarre way of looking at it... So because something extremely similar exists and you concede that that's acceptable, you accuse me of what amounts to whataboutism? So much for WP:GF. There's nothing wrong with MSN as a source, and I'm sure I could find others at some point. Meanwhile, consider being creative rather than destructive; what has this article gained by your removal of my edit? That's a rhetorical question. Drummerdg (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say the diff you provided was acceptable; I haven't reviewed it. I also didn't accuse you of anything, I made no assumption as to whether you were aware that "what about X" was a poor argument, though you did make it, so either you weren't aware that it was a poor argument or you were aware and didn't care. In any event, I'm not the one who weighed in on MSN. If and when you'd like to provide a specific source other than the one that's already raised concern, I'll be happy to weigh in. DonIago (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I mixed you up with Jbbdude, my mistake. You cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; in that essay (which is not even a policy), you will see that it clearly says that in many cases (such as this one), it's perfectly appropriate to make comparisons to existing similar material that follows Wikipedia guidelines ("Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Five pillars"). So why engage in Wikilawyering about a trivial change to an article? Again: would my change increase or decrease the quality of this article? All Wikipedia policies are aimed at the former. And why do you feel the personal need to police other editors' changes? How about adding something to the article rather than taking down the work of others? Is that really a productive use of your time? Same question for Jbbdude. This is exactly the sort of pedantry that continues to drive newcomers away from our site. I'm not going to engage in an edit war with you, but you both ought to strongly reconsider whether removing a single statement really improved the quality of this article. Drummerdg (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, just to prove to you that there are in fact other reliable third-party mentions of the parody, here is one from AOL, complete with a byline. So is it really a case of lack of notability, or is just that you don't like it? Drummerdg (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to be anything other than an essay, did I? Jbb provided a very good reason why the MSN link was inappropriate; because it's user-generated content. I asked whether you could provide other/better sources, and this is the first time you've explicitly provided one. That said, the AOL mention (which, for the record, Jbb alluded to previously), and I think "mention" is the operative term, barely even discusses the parody except as a "check this out". The article is literally a single sentence and resembles, IMO, click-bait. Can you do any better?

You may feel your change is trivial, but what about when ten other editors all want their own trivial additions made to the article? Is it possible that you're taking this personally? Your concerns seem to extend well beyond the strict matter of "is this material appropriate for inclusion in the article".

If you'd like to provide a source that substantively discusses the video, I'm happy to take a look over it. Otherwise, I don't have much else to discuss as far as this goes. DonIago (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you're moving the goalposts. First off, article content does not in and of itself need to satisfy notability guidelines. It merely needs to have a reliable source, which I have provided (I can't read Jbbdude's mind so I don't know what he may have been referring to). The fact that you and he don't happen to like it irrelevant; neither of you own this article, so you are not the gatekeepers of what does or does not get to go in. As to your question about what happens when ten other editors want more trivial changes made to the article, I say "Great! That's exactly the purpose of this site!". The more (reliably sourced) content, the better, as long as it is reasonably related to the article at hand, which I don't believe either of you would dispute that a parody version of a song is. With regards to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if you concede that is not a rule of any kind, then it is irrelevant to this discussion, and I will certainly not have you use it as a bludgeon to lecture me on how to make an argument.

The fact of the matter is that what I did (adding a reliably sourced reference to a song cover, in this case a parody) is so common on Wikipedia that there are in fact entire stand-alone lists devoted entirely to the matter (e.g. for Madonna or Michael Jackson). You will notice that in each of those, there is an admonishment only to provide a reliable source, not to satisfy any level of notability. So it is quite clear that community consensus is in favor of edits like mine, as evidenced not only by how common they are (after all, some level of vandalism is sadly common too) but also by how multiple Wikipedia policies allow for them. Drummerdg (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"First off, article content does not in and of itself need to satisfy notability guidelines." Highly debatable: WP:SONGCOVER and WP:SONGTRIVIA stress the importance of notability. A YouTube parody is trivia, and it encourages more trivia, and this article has already had some of the cruft trimmed in the past. It doesn't need any more. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's debatable only in the sense that any Wikipedia policy is debatable (at which point we enter WP:IGNORE territory). WP:SONGCOVER states that covers/parodies can be included as long as they are reliably sourced (which we have established above). WP:SONGTRIVIA doesn't apply here as that covers mentions or uses of the song itself in other media, not parodies of the song. Also, neither of those are actual policies; they're just guidelines from a WikiProject. What is a policy, though, is WP:PRESERVE, which states that content should be kept unless is it is improperly sourced or non-neutral. That does not apply to this edit (assuming I replace the original MSN link with the one from AOL as discussed above). Personally, I also disagree with your characterization of song parody lists as "trivia" or "cruft"; I find them quite interesting (certainly more so than things like lists of Pokémon; exactly what is the notability of each and every individual character in that series?). Drummerdg (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat selective quotation; WP:SONGCOVER says "discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right" (my emphasis). Your MSN and AOL references essentially establish that this parody exists, and the identify of the bloke that uploaded it, but nothing more. A million hits is chicken feed these days, surely. "I find them quite interesting" is WP:ILIKEIT (though, granted, my argument is partly WP:IDONTLIKEIT, based on my experience of the last section of this and other song articles gradually filling up with obscure covers, parodies and appearances in crap films and video games, until someone comes along and cleans out the Augean stable every so often and starts the process over again). Does this parody tell us anything about the song (other than "people have heard of it")? Will anybody remember it in a couple of weeks? Did the guy pay royalties and is anybody in Dexys even aware of it? I doubt it. The four tests at the end of WP:IPCEXAMPLES don't really stack up very well for it either. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, the fact that I find it interesting is not the base of my argument (more of an aside), though I believe the comparison to the exhaustive lists of every Pokemon ever invented ought to merit the same scrutiny being applied here; do you agree? At any rate, my point above is simply that, in the absence of any reason to believe that a given fact is false, or that content is somehow misleading, edits should be left in place per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NNC (which are official policies as opposed to guidelines like you linked to). Let's avoid policy shopping here and go by the those which common sense would dictate apply in the simplest way. (EDIT: WP:NNC is actually a guideline, not a policy - my mistake). Drummerdg (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:IPCV, which references an RfC in which there was consensus that a source establishing the mere existence of a pop culture reference (which I'd argue this could be considered as) is insufficient. It's unclear to me from your prior posts that you've in fact reviewed that. Increasingly, your failure to provide a better source is leading me to believe you're unable or unwilling to do so; I believe it should be obvious at this point that that would be the easiest way to resolve this matter, and it's unclear to me why you're so intent on having this one particular parody mentioned that you'd write as much as you have about it, while apparently not driven enough to do the research to determine whether there are appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That link is to an essay, not a policy, so regardless of what it says, it cannot overrule the actual policies I've already cited (which do not require any more than a reliable source). Therefore I am not going to engage with it. You have refused to answer my questions regarding why you are going around sabotaging other editors' work in clear violation of WP:PRESERVE, but in the interest of civility, I will answer yours: I have written this much because of your refusal to acknowledge that your revert violated Wikipedia policy, because you attempted to condescend to me about my argumentation style rather than actually refuting my arguments, and because you moved the goalposts for what you personally consider to be a reliable source. The rest of my comments have been directed at other editors involved in this discussion. It's not about this particular piece of content, it's about the freedom to add veriable content (as I have done here) without being subject to arbitrary reverts with flimsy excuses that don't hold up to scrutiny (again per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NNC, and likely others). I continue to suggest that you contribute in a constructive rather than destructive manner. Drummerdg (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You clearly did not carefully review the link, or my previous message. I referred to WP:IPCV referencing an RfC, which it does. As a courtesy to you, I'll link you directly. If you want to talk about policy in general, then I would encourage you to do so at the appropriate pages for said policies. As the rest of your post appears more interested in allegations of conduct issues rather than discussion of the content, I don't see how anything constructive can come of my engaging with it. DonIago (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on this: I don't think anything more constructive will come of this discussion right now. I'm going to go ahead and disengage. Drummerdg (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Come On England

same song no separate notability Richhoncho (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat questionable statement there, Rich. Same tune, different lyrics, and separate notability as a football record. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: The lyrics are distinct. The occasion different. In "Come On Eileen" mentioning "Come On England" as an adaptation is ok, but in my opinion, "Come On England" should stay as a separate article. werldwayd (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Weak oppose @Richhoncho: I see you've suggested this merge again. I don't really care either way, but has anything changed since 2014? Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per the two above I think 'Come On England' is a distinct enough song that they shouldn't be merged. Flalf^Talk 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I've literally never heard of "Come On England" before. I've heard Come On Eileen before, since it's a well-known song that's been covered many a times. Google has more results for "Come On Eileen" (in quotes) than "Come On England" (in quotes), which while not entirely bulletproof, should at least serve to prove my point that Come On Eileen is distinct and far more culturally important than Come On England. In fact, if not for this entire discussion about Come On England, I would have continued to not know about it's existence. If it helps, I was born in 2002. 119.18.19.8 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

woops, I just noticed that it was advocating for the merge of Come On England into this article, not the other way around; in that case, I'm going to Weak Support the move, since, yeah, nothing's changed since 2014, not even the notability. That notability template message on the top of Come On England has been there for 6 years. Maybe it should just be a section of this article instead? 119.18.19.8 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)