This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as High-importance). Music/Music genres task force Tin Pan Alley is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Archives ( Index)

2013 2014 2015 2018

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

I notice that there is a page for Remick. We could link to that in the See Also section? /info/en/?search=Jerome_H._Remick What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvonsimson ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Since Remick was located in Detroit, it wouldn't seem appropriate to link his article here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The article says "Songwriters would literally bang on the doors of Tin Pan Alley businesses to get new material."

I'm guessing this really means "to get their new material published"?? Michael Hurwicz ( talk) 05:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

So nobody ever wondered if the term "tin pan" stood for, I dunno, an actual pan maybe? Made of a cheap metal like that used for tin cans? Nobody ever realized the allusion to a tool that, back when a different kind of goldrush began at tin pan alley, had been a common tool used to get rich? Is there really not a single source likening the row of publishers offices seated along the street next to each other each day trying to hit it big, to a row of gold miners seated along a river next to each other, each day panning for gold trying to hit it big? This has never occurred to anyone? Not once? Sure the anecdotal "evidence": "It sounds like a tin CAN, that's why I will call it tin PAN" makes perfect sense, not. Standing proof that, if you only repeat a lie often enough ... It still remains a lie. Just saying! 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 2003:CA:3F0C:73A8:C94:9DA:2C9B:73F6 ( talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Beyond My Ken:,

Did you forget an edit summary of some kind with your revert? If you're intending to reference the unsourced entries I understand you reverted my removal. Kind regards and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey @ Beyond My Ken:, is everything alright? You replied but then reverted. Take your time replying if you need some time, there's no rush. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, everything is fine, thank you for your concern. I just realized that my reply was too sharp and did not fully cover my reasoning, which follows:

Unlike what is commonly believed, WP:V does not require that all information be verified, it requires that all information be verifiable, and this is done through the presentation of supporting WP:reliable sources. (A recent RfC seeking to change the wording to "verified" received an overwhelming percentage of "oppose" votes and did not succeed.) Also not commonly understood is that such information for verification is not required to be presented in the form of formal references, although that is the usual way of going about it. A mention of the source for verification can legitimately come in the text of the information, and this can be found throughout the encyclopedia, usually in the form of "Professor Joan Smith, in her book The Kingdom of the Quails, writes that XXXXXXX...." This is an acceptable presentation of a reliable source -- although many editors choose when they see this format to add a formal reference.

In the case of the "In popular culture" section of this article, all of the entries have a specific reference to the source of the information, which is therefore verifiable, and satisfies the requirement of WP:V. No source can be more reliable for information about the content of a media object than the object itself. So long as the entry does not interpret or analyze the information, but describes it in a straigtforward manner, there is no need for an additional reference.

For the above reasons I restored the information to the list, as the entries are not "unsourced" they are simply sourced in an unusual -- but perfectly legitimate -- manner. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Beyond My Ken:, sorry for my late reply. You know, I don't think that in my 16 years of Wikipedia editing I've seen anyone put it so eloquently like that. I've never looked at it like that. Thank you for explaining. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC) reply