Talk:List of train songs

Notability

I believe that this list does meet wikipedia notability guidelines, though it should be placed in context. For instance, the importance of train songs to American music history should be mentioned. Of the importance of the ubiquitous railroads to the development of the blues at the turn of the 20th century. It provides a starting point for those interested in railroad songs in general to discover noteworthy composers and artists through other linked wiki articles. --Rico (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rico: the train song is a well-known and significant genre and a list like this is useful. I also agree with him that the lead section should be expanded. Still, as no-one has given a reason why the article might fail the notability test, I’ll remove the tag. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How to define "train song"?

Perhaps we might establish a rubric to help us analyze train songs. But what characteristics should we include? Here are some suggestions:

Rhythm: Does the song have a steady chucka-chucka rhythm?

Tempo: Does the song have a tempo change?

Lyrics: Do the lyrics include references to trains, travelling, hobos and the like?

Title: Does the title reference trains or railroads?

Melody: Does song employ a Doppler-esque shift? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.35.230 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommendations

I've been editing the train song list recently to add more current examples, hunt down performers for listings that have none, remove highly unnotable entries, correct errors in titles/performers/wikilinks and clean up other issues. Along the way, several things became apparent, most of which are related to notability and each of which has a relatively easy solution:

• Notability - Criteria is needed for including and excluding songs. Recommendations: Limit the list to songs where trains must have something to do with the theme rather than just being mentioned a one point. Require that songs must be performed by notable (wikilinked) artists or have some other verifiable significance.
• Completeness - Given that more than 10,000 train songs exist and that some have hundreds of different covers, striving for completeness is neither possible nor desireable. Recommendation: Enforce notability guidelines, but allow listings without attribution. The rationale for this exception is covered under the next point.
• Verifiability - All entries must be vetted, yet a list of references would considerably lengthen the article and wouldn't be very useful since only a couple sources are needed to verify the bulk of what's included here. Recommendations: Require that songs must be checked against sources like allmusic.com. Songs that can't be found in a rudimentary Google search should be removed.
• Uniqueness - Composers should be included to both credit the songwriters (useful info) and make clear the difference between unique songs that share the same titles. Recommendation: Provide credits where possible and require this as part of the notability guidelines; for example, if a writer can't be identified and the song isn't traditional, it's not likely to be notable.
• Length - Listing multiple performers by using multiple entries unnecessarily bloats the list. Recommendation: List each song once, followed by performers' wikilinks. Note that most significant artists are wikilinked, and the few that aren't should be redlinked to encourage creating articles on them.
• Introduction - The lead paragraphs should provide a history of the form. Recommendation: Research and write an account of 5-10 paragraphs. As the intro grows, it could become its own linked article, as it should.

None of the above would take an inordinate amount of work. For example, here's how the "O" section would look with a few minutes of editing:

1. "Oh, The Mountains" - Roger Ilott
2. "Old 901"
3. "Old Buddy, Goodnight" - Utah Phillips
4. "Old Gospel Train" - Dorothy Love Coates
5. "Old Iron Trail" - Boxcar Willie
6. "Old Train" - Seldom Scene; Tony Rice Unit
7. "On a Cold Winter's Night"
8. "On the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe" - Tommy Dorsey; Johnny Mercer
9. "On the Night Train" - Henry Lawson & Roger Ilott
10. "On the Railway" (traditional)
11. "On the Slow Train" - Flanders and Swann
12. "On the Southbound" - Mac Wiseman
13. "On the Train" - Janis Ian
14. "Once Great Railway Family, The" - Keith Foster & Roger Ilott
15. "One After 909" - The Beatles
16. "One More Ride" - Hank Snow; Johnny Cash
17. "One Toke Over the Line" - Brewer & Shipley
18. "Orange Blossom Special" - Johnny Cash; Charlie Daniels Band; Flatt & Scruggs; Johnson Mountain Boys; Bill Monroe & His Bluegrass Boys; Seatrain; Donna Stoneman; Carl Story

Condensing the section eliminates 10 of 28 listings. Besides reducing length, it also allows for adding more cover versions. The only difficulty is discerning unique versions of songs, but that has to be done anyway as part of the vetting process (easy to do in allmusic's database).

I'm perfectly willing to undertake whatever's needed, but would appreciate hearing from others before moving ahead. Thanks.Allreet (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. An important point: As credited in the introduction, the WP list was copied from another site. Even if that site is license free, this is bothersome. Most if not all lists found elsewhere on the internet are ridden with errors and provide no indication of their sources. I've already scoured three-quarters of the WP list through independent sources and very shortly intend to replace the credit (but include this site and others as external sources) with an explanation of the referencing.

The list was originally compiled at my site and I moved it to WP so it could be user-maintained. I'm happy to see the additions, research, and development of criteria that have happened here. Thanks, all. --Rico (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Waste Of Space

There's a lot of unused space on the right, maybe make columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.162.44 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Though this response is late, a couple points should be made since the above comment is legit. Adding artists to the songs is now filling in the space on the right. Also, columns use more space vertically, don't accommodate listing multiple artists very well, and are harder to edit, especially for newcomers. Allreet (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Additions

I added a couple of songs last night, Long Train by Hamilton Camp, and Hurricane by Steve Gillette (yes, Hurricane is a train song!). Sad to see that there is so little discussion here. Train songs are an important part of folk music history and this page deserves a lot more attention! I hope somebody reads this and wants to jump back in. Vlmagee (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

EMR A Train Song???

How did Gordon Lightfoot's "Early Mornin' Rain" make this list? It's about an AIRPORT. That raises another issue. The list should include any given song once, according to author - not be a catalogue of who performed it. Sensei48 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

EMR mentions the possibility of taking a train, a passing reference that hardly qualifies the song for train song-hood.

On the other subject, I'm not so sure the list should be limited to one version per song, but I'm wide open to the possibility. Obviously, this would make life, both selection and long-overdue sourcing, a lot easier. There are some benefits, however, to listing more than one version. For example, a song written and recorded by Jimmie Rodgers becomes all the more notable when we learn it was covered over the years by Johnny Cash, Hank Snow and Jerry Lee Lewis. The beneficiary of that history is the reader, who in many cases won't know the original performer but will recognize the cover artists. Similarly, limiting a song's listing to the author's version overlooks versions by others that may be even more notable. On the other hand, a great deal of subjectivity comes into play, meaning how are we to judge which versions should be included and which aren't worth bothering with? It's difficult enough to verify the existence of many of the songs listed here, let alone their relative notability. Given all that, the possibilities are:

• Limit the list to the original version. Best would be to include the composer and original performer, since verifying composers is considerably more difficult than verifying performers. Songs without one or the other simply wouldn't qualify.
• Maintain the current format, which allows separate listings for notable versions of the same song.
• Provide one listing per song followed by the composer in parentheses and then every notable artist who performed it (notability determined by having a Wikipedia page).

Personally, I'm torn between the first and third. What do others think? Allreet (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the first option is the worst, since there is no strict principle requiring us to omit notable information in that way. I don't care between #2 and #3. Wareh (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally removed Early Morning Rain. Also removed Lucinda Williams's Can't Let Go (my own entry) and Van Morrison's Madame George. The rule of thumb is that a passing reference does not make a song a train song. Allreet (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Then "TCB" & "The Gambler", & a couple of others, should come out, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Consolidating songs' artists and adding composers

I've begun consolidating artists so that there's just one listing per song, followed by the song's performers. This requires researching and including the composers to differentiate who was recording which version. For example, there are several songs entitled "Last Train" composed by different songwriters. Without the writers, nobody can tell which song is being referenced. For other songs, where there is just one composer/version, consolidating the artists saves space and allows more artists to be included, as a previous editor suggested (and provided an example to make the point). Overall, I think these changes are for the better. Consider what I'm doing now as a "test" case that can be reverted if needed. If anyone objects or has additional feedback for improvement, please post your comments here. Allreet (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started adding citations, at this point most sourced through AllMusic by searching for a song, then listing the most notable recordings. I then link to individual albums and listen to the songs to disambig the versions. If I find a unique version, I enter a separate listing. What's emerging—by adding and consolidating artists, adding composers and including citations—is a listing that is far more interesting and useful. Allreet (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(Replying to your first comment) I think this is a very reasonable approach. Do you think the entries might be better bulleted instead of numbered? Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The numbering doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Bullets would be better. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Methodology

The list is looking much better already. I'm wondering about the songs followed by more than one performer's name: should the order be alphabetical or chronological by year of release? In instances where the songwriter (or one of them) recorded a version of the song, how should that be handled, I wonder. Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to restore this comment in order to opine that, as an ideal, chronological order would be much better. At least, it is awkward if the original performer is unclear from the list. The value of chronological information outweighs the questionable value of alphabetization (since there are not many names here). So the ideal would be: "Elvis Presley (1953), Emmylou Harris (1979)," etc. I understand if the ideal isn't soon achievable; my main suggestion would be that, as editors do research that may turn up dates, that they be inserted into the list, so that at least the information is there for the future. Wareh (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that chronological order would be preferable in theory. In practice, however, I suppose it may not be too feasible. Most editors who add a name (or a song with multiple names) aren't going to know (or bother) to check the dates, so there would be new, improperly sorted entries among the older, sorted ones—a potential source of confusion to readers. Adding the dates, as you suggest, would help to sort that out, I guess. However, there will be instances where two versions of a song were released in the same year, and determining the month (let alone the exact date) may be impossible. I suspect there are quite a few cases where it's not clear who the "original" performer is, but I may be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement; let's just throw in a given artist's earliest known recording date, if we're looking at it anyway, so that our readers get some historical perspective where possible (regardless of the order). If sometimes the dates don't clear things up, that's no big deal--other times they will. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Allreet may like to weigh in, but it sounds good to me. Rivertorch (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please pardon the late response. I think noting the first recording of a song is valuable, both in identifying the artist and the song's period of origin. My only concern is the research, as Rivertorch points out, and with that, the need for more footnotes. Where possible, I've been using a single reference for a given song. Only AllMusic allows this since few if any other reliable (non-wiki) sources provide such a wide listing of performers, and even fewer include the composers, which is essential for disambiguation. Fortunately, AllMusic also provides the date of the album. So as long as someone is certain that AllMusic or some other source verifies the notation, I'd favor inclusion of "Elvis (1953)". Trying to list the performers chronologically, however, strikes me as an immense amount of work for moderate return. Allreet (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how many songs are on this list so I don't have to count? Thank you. Toteburger (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Toteburger

709 songs after removing two. Allreet (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold song titles

As I noted in my edit summary, I'm bolding song titles to make them stand out from the text. With the addition of composers, artists and citations (essential, I think), the song titles are becoming obscured. I've only changed the first few sections as a test and would appreciate what others think. About this and the list in general. Allreet (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've bolded nearly half of the song titles. If needed, I can easily remove the mark-ups, though I believe they help. For example, with the titles bolded, I can scroll and still scan the titles, whereas with the half that isn't, I find myself having to stop every now and then. I'll be contacting previous editors and commenters for their input. Allreet (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't find it makes much of a difference for me, but Allreet offers reasonable grounds for doing it, and I certainly have no objection. Thanks, Allreet, for all your hard work on this page! Wareh (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wareh. Using bold titles differs from the usual practice on list pages, so I thought about this long and hard. Generally, what I mentioned above holds true: with all of the artist wikilinks in blue, the titles - in black - become almost secondary and tend to get lost visually. That point became even clearer when I saw the list on a smart phone. The bolding makes an even bigger difference in the smaller format. Given no objections, I've proceeded with bolding all of the titles. Allreet (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dramatic increase in page visits

Visits to the list have increased dramatically over the past three years. Compare the page views from January 2009 to those from November 2011. Allreet (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The train don't stop here anymore

Is there a good reason a song, "Transylvania Terror Train", by a fictional band, is on the list...? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question, especially as you begin to dig into it. This is one of several hundred songs I haven't gotten around to yet, so I wasn't aware of its background. For those who don't know, "Transylvania Terror Train" by Captain Clegg & The Night Creatures is from Rob Zombie's 2009 remake, Halloween II. The "band" is Jesse Dayton's, has its own website and had plans to tour (from what I read) in the spirit of other "fictional" bands such as Spinal Tap, and The Ruttles. But back to the question, who would you credit "Man of Constant Sorrow" to? Not Union Station. The primary source is the O Brother, Where Art Thou album, which credits The Soggy Bottom Boys, unreal as they may be, without mentioning Union Station. So is Spinal Tap fictional? And were the Beatles or the Mothers of Invention real? Of course, they were, but what they both have in common with Captain Clegg is that they were inventions, springboards for the imaginations, extensions of the personas, of their creators. Anyway, my inclination is to credit Captain Clegg and possibly add Jesse Dayton et al in parentheses, as I might do with Soggy Bottom's version of "Constant Sorrow". Allreet (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The obvious response escaped me: The song is certainly real, and the only question is how do you credit it? Allreet (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, so I was also wondering if it was actually on the soundtrack. If it is, the musicians would be credited on the DVD; the film company would have to pay them, & the royalties would go somewhere, so there'd have to be a correct credit. As to why I didn't think of that before... :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added Jesse Dayton as the composer and a citation linking it to the soundtrack album on Allmusic, which credits Captain Clegg & The Night Creatures. The wikilink for Captain Clegg redirects to Halloween II, so I guess the only question remaining is: If someone or something does not have its own wiki page, does it really exist? >:D Allreet (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

An excellent question. Until somebody creates the page, anyhow. :) Thx for the effort. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not an excellent question. It really is disappointing that people who struggle with such questions consider themselves competent to edit an encyclopedia. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not existence. There are plenty of things like the loch ness monster, yeti, and sasquatch that do not exist yet which have Wikipedia articles because they are notable, and similarly there are plenty of things, millions of them in fact, that exist but which are not sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles. So yes, something or someone can "exist" without having a Wikilink. Cottonshirtτ 12:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cottonshirt apparently misses the humor, the tongue in cheek, in the preceding exchange. Allreet (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

One country perspective

I have added the globalize template to this article because it discusses and lists train songs as though they are a uniquely US phenomenon. The second sentence even claims (without source) that the theme started with the advent of railroads in the US, and the second paragraph claims (again without source) that the first train songs date to two years before the country's first public railway began operating. Use of the definite article and singular noun imply that only one country is involved or need be considered. The article fails to mention any other country or to even imply that any other country might have either railroads or train songs. Cottonshirtτ 03:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Cottonshirt's assertions, sources are provided for the history in the introduction:

• Green, Archie (Editor) (1968). "Railroad Songs and Ballads: From the Archive of Folk Song". Library of Congress.
• Cohen, Norm (2000). Long Steel Rail: The Railroad in American Folksong, 2nd Ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Examples of train songs from countries other than the U.S. are included in the list, which invariably favors English-speaking countries because one of the criteria for inclusion is that the artists or songs have wikilinks to ensure notability. Since this is the English version of Wikipedia, I'm not sure how songs from China or India, for example, can be used if notability and verifiabilty cannot be satisfied. Allreet (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Size split?

Split = Article is over 100 kB, and should be split. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a little large, actually over 200k. Much of the size is due to the extensive references. The only logical way to split it would be alphabetically, as far as I can see. Something like 0–G, H–R, and S–Z, maybe. I'd like to hear what Allreet thinks. Rivertorch (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing that should be considered is how this affects navigation, particularly for smartphone users but PC users as well. Currently, phone users see the TOC box for jumping to a specific letter section followed by a scrolling list of all sections 0-Z. They then have the option of jumping to a particular letter section from the TOC or scrolling to a desired letter. Would splitting the article decrease ease-of-use for this audience? And how would it affect navigation for PC users? I realize size is of concern, but apparently Wikipedia's server speed has been improved, reducing load time considerably (about 8 seconds on a five-year-old laptop and less than 2 seconds on a smartphone). What, then, is the advantage of a split? WP:SPLITLIST suggests that a split may not be necessary, but I could be missing something and apart for the above, I'm open to the idea. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)