Talk:My Name Is Jonas

I have been setting up the stubs for several of the blue album songs. I am going to add detail after I get all the basic stuff down

Related to the book "The Giver"?

I found this link that suggests the relationship.

http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3030 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.127.202.141 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

No. It's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.19.186 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In media? SG-1 reference...

Ok, so the in popular culture sections are already a joke but come on! There does not need to be a SG-1 reference in every article. I'm deleting it, if somebody can explain exactly how a chance similarity is an actual reference to this song they are free to put it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.182.136 (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, why is "Jack's Mannequin" specifically cited as having covered this song? What is notable about that? If someone would like to compile a list of artists and bands who have covered "My Name Is Jonas" (daunting, since I am certain it would be a very long list) then this would be fine. Otherwise, it's out of place and unnecessary. So until then I'm deleting it. And if someone takes issue with that and reverts it, I would suggest at least moving it to a differnt heading. "In The Media" should refer to popular appearances of the song outside of concerts and music videos. Covers are an entirely different subject. 76.93.65.34 (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Weezer - Blue Album.jpg

The image Image:Weezer - Blue Album.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've redirected this article twice to Weezer, but Kokoro20 has twice reverted the redirect.

I believe this article fails WP:NSONGS, which states that a song with its own article must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works", and that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." There are other standards for song notability, like notable cover versions and awards, but I don't think this song meets those standards either.

The article's current claims for notability are unimpressive: an About.com article ranking the song as "the 7th best Weezer song", and a Diffuser article ranking it "as the 3rd best Weezer song." If these were citations along the lines of "7th best rock song of the 90s", or "3rd best guitar solo", or somesuch, these might be more impressive, but they're just talking about Weezer songs here. I mean, 7th best Weezer song? Who cares? Why don't we have articles for the 10th best Weezer song too? The 20th? the 50th? Popcornduff (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Per edit summaries I've given. While the examples you gave for reception would be more impressive, the sources that are in the article cover the song significantly, so I feel that it at least covers the minimal requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Right now the sources are: the Weezer biography (which predictably covers almost every Weezer song, and does not prove this song's notability); the official Weezer site (fails " sources are independent of the artist and label" requirement of WP:NSONGS); two lists of the best Weezer songs (unimpressive - see my rebuttal above); a source reporting that My Chemical Romance played the song with Weezer once (possibly not even worth mentioning in the article, and not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the song is included in a video game (not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the Thermals covered the song (not grounds for notability); and a source reporting that a (non-notable) Weezer covers band covered the song (duh; not grounds for notability). All of the sources look reliable, it's just that none of them, to my mind, constitute notability.

I don't mean to be a jackass about this. Can you explain how you think the song meets the requirements of WP:NSONGS? My Name is Jonas needs to have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Popcornduff (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained why I feel it meets that guideline. Even though the song is not a single, it's one of Weezer's most popular songs, as reflected by the reception sources. As for a Weezer cover band covering the song, the citation actually gives some context to it too, rather than just saying they covered the song, with some of that being included in the article. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere is a song's popularity mentioned in WP:NSONGS.Popcornduff (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but if a song is popular enough, there will likely be coverage on it that satisfies the guideline. Also, keep in mind that the article's current state has no impact on the notability. If there's more in-depth coverage available within the internet or a book, you can use that as an argument, whether or not it's currently cited in the article. Speaking of which, I have now found more significant coverage from a print source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Aduy1H1mUx0C&pg=PA164&dq=%22My+Name+Is+Jonas%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=50zvU9nvKsaOyAS8v4D4AQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22My%20Name%20Is%20Jonas%22&f=false Kokoro20 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Now the conversation's getting circular. I'm saying there aren't enough non-trivial sources to demonstrate the song's notability. You're saying the song is popular, and saying that if it's popular enough, there will be non-trivial sources to prove it. To which the answer is: yes, I quite agree! So stop arguing for the song's popularity, and start finding better sources. I'm sorry, but I don't think this new source alone cuts the mustard either. Popcornduff (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:NSONG's definition of "non-trivial", some of the sources in the article aren't trivial. And that source it not alone. There's more non-trivial sources already cited in the article. I mean, while most non-single songs aren't notable enough for their own article, some are, and this is one of them. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you have multiple non-trivial sources to back you up. It's clear we're not going to resolve this, so I'm going to nominate the page for deletion and a consensus can be reached. It's quite possible that in the process other editors will find better sources and the page can be kept. Popcornduff (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is EER0D

why is he the man who made the song 2600:1700:34D0:7FD0:3D12:760C:3451:B6F5 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)