Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire

message: FrancineLouise created a parody of we didn't start the fire which lists an incredible amount  playstation song names featured both on newgrounds.com's front page receiving daily awards http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/406500 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/479699 titled "& So We Love Playstation"
*There's a parody of the song sung on the show History Bites, in the season three episode "Nero Business Like Show Business", by Roman Emperor Nero called "I Didn't Start the Fire", where Nero tries to deny any involvement in the Great Fire of Rome. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both now added. JQF • Talk • Contribs 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parodies to be added 

message: *We've gone around on this before, and the mention of derivations (more properly, take-offs) have uncontroversially been in the lead paragraph for a very long time. Please take a moment to understand WP:LEAD The lead does not merely summarize the topic, it summarizes the article. Quoting: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." This means summarizing the various sections present in the article. Quoting: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." This means, simply enough, that if no mention of the derivations section is present in the lead, it is an incomplete lead section which cannot stand alone as a concise overview of the article. 
*The 2nd paragraph summarizes nothing that exists elsewhere in the article, and is unsourced original research. So I removed it.
--Lexein (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with PaulGS that the fact that the Billy Joel song has been parodied (or referenced by other songs) is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. And that's because it's trivia. The WP:LEAD outlines that the lede should summarize important information in the article. Now, I'll admit that I've seen a lot of Wikipedia articles that include sections with trivia. But to mention that trivia in the lede, I think, is inappropriate and definitely not encyclopedic.Jpcohen (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The qualitative criterion "important" does not override the definition of the lead, in which the quantitative: "summarize the article" is the key point.  Dismissing an entire section of the article is inappropriate, and transparent WP:UNDUE de-emphasis of a section already placed far down the article, even though you personally don't like it. You both are selectively reading the guideline to suit your shared bias against having the lead paragraph summarize the article as it is written, in favor of what you prefer to see in the lead. --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That the lead should emphasize an article's "most important" aspects/points is mentioned in both the first and second paragraphs of the guideline that you yourself are citing. You can't just write those words off as modifiers that carry no weight. I am not suggesting that the trivia section of this article (and that's what I consider the section on parodies/references/knockoffs to be) ought to be removed. But if we can agree that it is a trivia section, trivia is, by definition, not important. This is why I object to mentioning the knockoffs/parodies in the lead. I don't believe this shows any personal bias against the trivia section on my part. If I was against having that section in the article, I would be recommending its removal. And I'm not. And since PaulGS agrees with me on this, it's clear that this is not just my judgement. Many Wikipedia articles have similar trivia sections in them. But because these sections are trivial, I don't believe that they ought to be mentioned in the lead of any article (where "important" introductory information on any given topic belongs). Hopefully other editors will weight in on this dispute so we can settle the matter.Jpcohen (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead and takeoffs 

message: One of the political parties in India purchased the rights to this song and made a derivative of it as part of their campaign for the 2014 parliamentary elections.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2516506/Mulayam-buys-rights-Billy-Joel-song--writes-HIMSELF.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awDYK97PQz0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.42.30 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  derivative works 

message: This aside in the "Of Note" section is unnecessary:  "(by a not entirely accurate lyric referring only to England, rather than Great Britain)"
England got a new queen--that is entirely accurate.  It is also accurate to say that the UK got a new Queen, as well as every Commonwealth Realm, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Channel Islands, etc. but not necessary.   Additionally, the aside is itself incorrect as the entity QE is most known for ruling is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"--not just Great Britain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.26.53 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the entire phrase. Problem solved. Jedzz (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary parenthetical aside. 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Didn%27t_Start_the_Fire#Year-end_charts
Something's wrong with the sorting. I don't know how to put it into words. (I'm not really good with that kind of thing.) You'll see it when you click the "Position" arrow. JMtB03 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: Per WP:NOT, we should avoid lists of miscellaneous information like this unless the facts can be contextualized using reliable secondary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Of note" 

message: Why is this not wikilinked? There's a page called Red China. Should I go fix it?
: "Red China" leads to a disambiguation page that leads back to "China", which was already linked later in the entry, in association with more descriptive text ("People's Republic of China"). I removed the link to "H-Bomb" for a similar reason.Jedzz (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red China 

message: I remember seeing a video/movie in middle school about recycling that started with a parody of this song called "We Didn't Start the Landfill." The movie was taped/released in 1990. Who knows the name of the movie? Cbsteffen (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody that Would Be Hard to Describe in This Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on We Didn't Start the Fire. 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/20090916202434/http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?media_id=97&season=12 to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?media_id=97&season=12
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the 1963 section, it says that the Nation of Islam "censor[ed]" Malcolm X. Is this a misspelling of "censure", or did they actually censor him?
--Zzedar (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Malcom X article, it should be “censured”. Good catchJedzz (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censor/censure 

message: I removed "(What else do I have to say?)" from the "JFK blown away" bullet point, because it is not necessarily referring to the JFK assassination, and is simply one of several transitions to the chorus. Dtwedt (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "JFK blown away (What else do I have to say?):" 

message: The music video section says the music video depicts a single family over the decades with redecorations of the kitchen. But according to this blog post  with interviews of the different women in the video, it's a different family in each decade kitchen with the mothers played by different women. The blog post article is recommended by the official Billy Joel website here, so it would seem to be accurate in its information, ie not made up. Also if you watch the video - the 1950's family has a son while the 1960's/70's family has a daughter. Also it might be of interest to note that Marlee Matlin played the 1960's/70's family's daughter. Libertybison (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music video section 

message: I believe the entry for U-2 should specify that this is not U2 (the band).  There are several reasons for this.  First, they sound exactly the same, so no distinction there.  Second, the song lists many different historical events and musical groups, so the reference could be to either.  The disambiguation is by chronological order, but one was in 1960 and one in 1976 (founded).  For any reader less than 45 years old, both of these happened before they were born, and the dates (even rough dates) may not be common knowledge.  Finally, a number of song lyric sites get this wrong, showing U2 instead of U-2, demonstrating that this is a common mistake.  Examples include Musixmatch, the default lyrics shown by Google.  So a short explanation is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer  (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: this generally isn't how Wikipedia presents information - if a reliable source could be found to show that this is a misconception, it would be a reasonable footnote, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I would disagree with this.  Wikipedia tries to reduce confusion when possible, just not present one view.  There is a macro Template:Distinguish that says "not be be confused with" and is used more the 79,000 times in Wikipedia.    This is also seen is disambiguation pages such as U2 (disambiguation), which explicitly names what the user might mean from a common name.  And here is a reliable source that also felt disambiguation was necessary: BILLY JOEL'S HIT SONG KINDLES FIRE OF LEARNING, BUT WHO WILL FAN THE FLAMES?.  The goal of Wikipedia is to help the reader, and a short note that helps this effort doesn't hurt, and may help.LouScheffer (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Billy Joel himself, commenting on his own song, notes this is a common misconception: "You talk to these kids and [...] They think the '50s was all Ozzie and Harriet. They think U2 is a rock group and not (a spy plane)." from BILLY JOEL STILL INVITES CRITICS TO TAKE THEIR BEST SHOTS and "“I sing ‘U-2' and a lot of people say, ‘I didn’t know that band was out in 1960,’ ” Joel says. “I have to tell them it was the spy plane that wrecked the peace conference between Khrushchev and Eisenhower.”, from Hit Confuses Younger Fans: Joel.  The same quote is mentioned in this Washington Post article.  In yet another interview he states "Now, a lot of people come say gee I didn’t know the band was around in 1960. I said I don’t mean the band I mean the spy plane.", from a message to teachers.  In addition, there are a number of independent sources that felt it necessary to specify the song did not refer to U2 the band.  BILLY JOEL'S HIT SONG KINDLES FIRE OF LEARNING, BUT WHO WILL FAN THE FLAMES?, An article bout Doris Days' death.  Here's a U2 discussion board that is definitely confused.  Here where it is presented in a trivia question.  Here's a disambiguation in the comic book context.  Here's a review of the containing album Storm Front.  In short it's a pretty common misconception, and well worth 4 words to help sort out.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sources you have presented do make it clear that it's due weight to include some sort of note. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should specify U-2 is not U2 

message: There are lots of famous Rockefellers, and a number of them made headlines in 1953 (The New York Times, for 1953, has more than 90 articles mentioning Rockefeller.)  Nelson Rockefeller went into national politics, and John D. Rockefeller III made headline for various charity activities (in particular, a $25 million grant for Colonial Williamsburg, an enormous amount at the time).  Here are some independent sources that discuss this:  Rockefeller(1953), All 59 people name-dropped in Billy Joel’s ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire’: Where are they now? and #FlashBack1989: Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start The Fire” is the Number One Song in the USA.  Here's some that think it's Nelson and not Winthrop: Backstory: Billy Joel. We Didn’t Start the Fire, “We Didn’t Start the Fire It Was Always Burning” – 10 Facts About Billy Joel’s Hit Song and We Didn't Start The Fire.  Here's a headline with John D. Rockefeller III: Rockefeller in Williamsburg 1953 (this one is more recent, but there are lots of articles about this in 1953, such as this one from the NYT).  As far as I know, Billy Joel has never specified which one (or more than one) he meant. LouScheffer (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Rockefeller? 

message: An editor believes the section that explains each reference is inappropriate.  I disagree - especially for younger (or non-American) listeners, many of the references will not be self-evident.   A one line explanation is about the right amount.  Other opinions?  LouScheffer (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a short explanation is appropriate, the song is uniquely stuffed full of notable references and a concise note for each with links benefits a proper understanding of the article's subject. Keep it in. Captainllama (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the hill I want to die on, but my removal was based on the lack of WP:SECONDARY sources listing the lyric terms item by item. I looked around and saw some media reports of teachers using this song as a way to choose history lessons, but they did not make a list of historic items like we have here. Usually, whenever we make a list on Wikipedia, there should be some published version of the list, or at least part of the list. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little surprised to hear that a list article on Wikipedia requires a corresponding independent list or two, perhaps that is so but never mind, this is not "a list". Other works of music; fiction; poems; films; creative items generally, are afforded a synopsis of what the work is about or represents, and are regarded as their own source without recourse to secondary sources. This example happens to carry an extraordinary weight of references, so the synopsis is necessarily correspondingly hefty - just as film plots carry a guideline word limit which may be surpassed for outlying examples of particularly convoluted or detail-dense films. "This list [sic] is crazy excessive" rightly, only inasmuch as the subject is "crazy excessive". Captainllama (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't, actually - notability guidelines like WP:LISTN only apply to article topics, not content in articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I wonder if there's any way it can be rationalized to have the list present elsewhere, say under the heading of "We Didn't Start The Fire (Lyrics)" because I was personally enraptured by exploring the other articles with the ease of perusing through the list of links previously on this page. I understand the concern regarding history lessons, but feel that using something as attention-grabbing as a song was likely a key element to why teachers (and independent learners like myself) might have gravitated to the list and explored history one article at a time. 24.248.117.102 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I think it pretty clearly is appropriate here, though ideally it would, well, have better sourcing. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to reiterate, a creative work is its own source; there is no better source. Captainllama (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Another reason that the list is useful to the reader is that the terms may be hard to look up (in Wikipedia and other sources) if the spelling is not obvious.  For example, someone who hears 'Syngman Rhee' and wants to see why he was included first has to figure out the spelling before they can look him up.  The short descriptions of the terms helps here.  LouScheffer (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

text: No. If you want a line-by-line reading, go to Genius. This is trivia, with a lack of secondary sourcing--and that lack of sourcing also indicates that really it does nto matter. Captainllama, "a creative work is its own source"--maybe, but that doesnt' mean that such content, derived from the original, is automatically noteworthy. And I'll remind you that interpretation of a primary/creative source is a matter for secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Going to Genius does not help in many cases.  How would you look up "California baseball" to see what was meant?  Also some are ambiguous ("Rockefeller", "U2") and a lyric site won't help with that.  And there are many reputable sources that include a list of meanings such as this or this one from Britannica.  LouScheffer (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--I added one of those links to the EL section. For an encyclopedia, it's still excessive of course. As for "California baseball"--we are not Google. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a short reference to the meaning of each item appropriate? 

message: Only a few editors have weighed in on whether or not to keep the descriptions of each item.  I'm hoping a few more will reply here, so we can see if there is any consensus.  Just looking for a keep or delete, with a one sentence justification, if you want.
:Keep.  List is useful for readers.  LouScheffer (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep per my previous comments on the subject. Maybe this should be converted to a formal RfC though, for a clearer consensus? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Keep and combine it with the "Historical Events Referenced" section too for good measure - still at the end maybe to appease those who object to it. 2.31.178.128 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we keep descriptions of each item? 

message: The song starts from 1949 onward because Billy Joel was born in 1949 not 1948. The song chronicles world events throughout his life. Harry Truman was president when he was born and Doris Day was one of the biggest actresses at the time of his birth. 98.214.201.41 (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1949 

message: Why dont we merge the events refrenced and event list into one subsection, I dont see why having them so far away from each other makes it easier to read or having two areas that basically only do half the job of each. Z4d0k NZ (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a compromise (see the section "Is a short reference to the meaning of each item appropriate?" just above).  Some editors did not want any list at all.  The compromise was to put it at the end where you don't have to scroll through a fairly long section to get to the other sections of the article.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge sections? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Pet Names for Genitalia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Pet Names for Genitalia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TartarTorte 21:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pet Names for Genitalia" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :The Wii Didn't Start the Fire and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#The Wii Didn't Start the Fire until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TartarTorte 22:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Wii Didn't Start the Fire" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This famous and widely acclaimed book is described as “a controversial novel”. This is bizarre since it is only controversial in a few US states that in any case promote censorship of books on some rather old-fashioned grounds. Furthermore it is unlikely Joel put it the song because of this so-called controversy. 92.16.85.110 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Catcher in the Rye 

message: Does "historical events referenced" need to be separate to "events mentioned"? The former section has a short paragraph, a quotation, and a link to the latter section. I think this can be included in the latter section. Is there any reason to keep it separate? 82.32.241.130 (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it seems strange and unnecessary to me too, though there is an explanation above about why it was done. Despite that, I still think it would be better to combine those 2 sections. 2.31.178.128 (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge two sections?  

message: The lede states that the song lists "... events between 1949 (the year of Joel's birth) and 1989...".
However the events listed in the "Events mentioned" section start from 1948.
They can't both be correct.  The question is whether if it's the lede or if it's the "Events mentioned" section that should be updated to be consist with the other. 70.29.86.93 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely 1948 as that was the year of the presidential election and the first Doris Day movie.  Fixed the lede.  LouScheffer (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between the lede and the "Events mentioned" section 

message: See Talk:We_Didn't_Start_the_Fire_(Fall_Out_Boy_song)#Merge_proposal. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal from [[We Didn't Start the Fire (Fall Out Boy song)]] to here 

message: I came to this page for the very information found in this section and had to go the the history page to find it. 
This song is made up of names of people and places in a rhyming format that is, no doubt, copyrightable. Would it be acceptable to list the people and places and the reason that they are important in *alphabetical* order. This would break the format of the song yet still provide the information I suspect people are looking for on this page.
Two other issues:
* the link to the deleted section has been left in place. 
* if the original text breaches copyright, how does the text available in the history NOT breach copyright? Does Wikipedia have the ability to truly delete entries so no-one can see it?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by  2403:5808:9a3c:0:b08f:48a4:94:33a6 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The lyrics copyright angle could be resolved by removing verbatim references in such cases where the phrase used in the song isn't a common name for the event (e.g. "trouble in the Suez"). I don't think that would resolve the list copyright issue, though, nor would alphabetizing. "Rolling Stone top 100 albums of the 2010s, alphabetized" would probably still be a copyright violation; thus likewise this. What would work is explaining a select subset, based on which lines are analyzed the most in independent reliable sources. We could also say "Several sources have published line-by-line explanations of the song" and link to those, for people who are looking for that. (We are not allowed to link to copyright violations, but in this case any such source likely has a solid fair use claim; the issue is that we are quite conservative about fair use as a matter of internal policy.)As to the historical revisions, yes, they should probably be deleted per WP:RD1. It's just a bit of a chore to find which, and there's some admin discretion involved.  Since you have the current record for largest copyvio revdel, are you up to taking a look? It's going to be most of the history going back, with some gaps, to the first revision.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The oldest versions are most definitely a copyvio (since they're just piped links of the lyrics) and I have hidden them. Will keep an eye on this discussion and start perusing through some of the more recent history as I suspect there will be more to RD1. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a better solution than deletion be found for this section? 

message: The following is a list of links to articles about events and people referenced in the song:
*AIDS
*Adolf Eichmann
*Aircraft hijacking
*Alabama
*Albert Einstein
*Apalachin meeting
*Apollo 11
*Arturo Toscanini
*Beatlemania
*Ben-Hur
*Berlin Wall
*Bernie Goetz
*Better by You, Better than Me
*Bob Dylan
*Boris Pasternak
*Brigitte Bardot
*Brooklyn Dodgers
*Budapest
*Buddy Holly
*Charles de Gaulle
*Charles Starkweather
*China
*Chubby Checker
*Cola wars
*Communist Bloc
*Crack cocaine
*Dacron
*Davy Crockett
*Dick_Clark#Payola_hearings
*Dien Bien Phu
*Disneyland
*Doris Day
*Dwight D. Eisenhower
*Edsel
*Elvis Presley
*Ernest Hemingway
*Fidel Castro
*Fresh Kills Landfill
*Gamal Abdel Nasser
*George Santayana
*Georgy Malenkov
*Grace Kelly
*Griswold v. Connecticut
*Harry S. Truman
*Ho Chi Minh
*Homeless veterans in the United States
*Hula hoops
*Iranian Revolution
*Jack Kerouac
*James Dean
*James Meredith
*Joe DiMaggio
*Joe McCarthy
*John F. Kennedy
*John F. Kennedy
*John Glenn
*John Profumo
*Johnnie Ray
*Joseph Stalin
*Juan Perón
*Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
*Lawrence of Arabia
*Lebanon
*Liberace
*Little Rock
*Malcolm X
*Marilyn Monroe
*Marlon Brando
*Menachem Begin
*Mickey Mantle
*Nikita Khrushchev
*North Korea
*Palestine
*Panmunjom
*Peter Pan
*Peyton Place
*Polio vaccine
*Pope Paul VI
*Psycho
*Punk rock
*Sovereign default
*Queen Elizabeth II
*Richard Nixon
*Richard Nixon
*Rock Around the Clock
*Rocky Marciano
*Ronald Reagan
*Roy Campanella
*Roy Cohn
*Russians in Afghanistan
*Sally Ride
*Sergei Prokofiev
*Sonny_Liston#Patterson_vs._Liston
*South Pacific (musical)
*Space Monkey
*Sputnik
*Stranger in a Strange Land
*Studebaker
*Suez Canal
*Sugar Ray Robinson
*Suicide Solution
*Syngman Rhee
*Television
*Thalidomide
*The Bay of Pigs Invasion
*The Bridge on the River Kwai
*The Catcher in the Rye
*The King and I
*The Republic of the Congo
*U-2
*Walter Winchell
*Watergate
*Wheel of Fortune
*Winthrop Rockefeller
*Woodstock
*Zhou Enlai  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:9A3C:0:68A0:936E:8585:1E92 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about the following: 

message: If we are going to remove the list then completely remove the "Historical events mentioned" section, considering it now holds very little information about the historical events mentioned. PeterGregson11 (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either give the information or remove the section entirely. 

message: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/fall-out-boy-we-didnt-start-the-fire.html 50.232.40.61 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallout Boy Cover/Remake/Update 

message: Fischer Z released "Perfect Day" in 1987, which has a similar rhythmic and lyrics style to this work. Coincidence possibly. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyAcK3Jahn8 2003:C6:7F01:C600:B8F1:3418:357B:E8B1 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fischer Z , Perfect Day 

message: The redirect China's under martial law has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 23:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:China's under martial law]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect British politician sex has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:British politician sex]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]