Talk:867-5309/Jenny/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Archived AfD debate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
867-5309/Jenny was proposed for deletion. This section is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in a new section on the article's talk page rather than here so that this section is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP
  • DELETE! Some would argue that the song has enough cultural signifigance for its own page but I disagree strongly. It needs to just be simmered down into the Tommy Tutone page and the "phenomenon" of people calling the number when the song came out deserves a one or two sentence mention at best. If we entered a seperate page for every song which has had a meaningless cultural impact...well it would just be clutterful. I suspect that's not a word, but I'm using it anyhow. Pacian 22:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant cultural impact; numerous pop culture references. Over 45,000 Google hits for "867-5309" [1]. I'm not saying we need individual articles about every song with "cultural impact", but this one's particularly important. There are many articles in Category:Songs that should be merged into their artists' articles; "867-5309/Jenny" isn't one of them. • Benc • 00:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't even believe that someone was so conceited to BRAG about their creation of this stupid article. [2] The Crow 00:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. —tregoweth 01:04, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Tommy Tutone. I think User:Pacian should be an admin. I totally agree with User:Pacian It's only a expanded a few sentences longer since 6 months ago and not likely to expand in the future. To even brag about creating something like that is like bragging about having a one inch erect penis, which probably the creator does. Bonsai K 02:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. klkjlk,.,.

Ironically, this article is longer than the Tommy Tutone article itself... -Sean Curtin 03:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, move info to article on singer. Wyllium 03:14, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cookiecaper 03:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, significant cultural phenomenon, or at least redirect. And insulting people really doesn't help your case. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:08, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: In addition to the creator's attempt to boost his ego by bragging about creating this entry, the song is clearly not-notable. If was removed from the list:List of songs by name: 0 - 9 [3] with the summary: Remove non-notable album tracks from non-notable albums. Also, nobody has rushed back to add it in. I doubt anybody would even care to add it back in since it's clearly NON-NOTABLE. I will definitely inform Gareth about this VFD and your evil intentions of keeping this non-notable song. The Crow 05:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've informed Gareth of your conspiracy to keep this trash. Judging from your comments, you're all Tommy Tutone fans who are trying to promote his songs. This article deserves to be deleted with prejudice. The Crow 05:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. -- WOT 05:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Notable song, even if I do dislike it. --Viriditas 06:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable song. DCEdwards1966 07:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain -- I think this is a borderline case. It was a huge hit, and was extremely memorable, but there's not a lot of interesting things you can say about it, short of reciting the lyrics. Since the singer was basically a one hit wonder, I'd have no problem with a merge and redirect.-- GWO
  • Keep. I agree that there's not much room for expansion, but I have nothing against short articles where appropriate. JamesMLane 12:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I agree with JamesMLane's reasoning. Posiduck 15:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A quite notable song, and IIRC the resulting lawsuits from some of the thousands of people who actually had that number is why TV and movies are required to use phony numbers like 555-5555, so it probably can be expanded a little. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 16:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Keep; merge and redirect Tommy Tutone to this song. There's no point in having two really short articles instead of one short article. —Rory ☺ 16:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Unfortunately, I think this is over the line to "pop ephemera that gets reference." I.e. it isn't that it was a fad, but that it was a fad that stands out from others by being continually referred to. Thus, knowing this helps people understand contemporary, as well as recent, cultural references. Tommy Tutone is less important than the song, when it comes down to it, and we'd have done better with a redirect from him to it, except that we have articles on just about any band. Geogre 18:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merge somewhere else, and redirect. This article is poorly titled and probably should be part of the author's page. --Improv 19:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Great song, but it's a poor title for an article, and I don't believe its story, though odd, is notable; it's more one of those silly quirks of life that occasionally go into Cingular commercials. Eight-six-seven-five-three-oh-nah-ee-ah-ine. Ian Pugh 20:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Is it not the correct title for the song? How is it a poorly-titled article? —Rory ☺ 20:32, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's poorly titled on the grounds that someone titled it; you're right that it is the correct title for the song. But, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, it's awkward. If I was for such an article's inclusion, I'd say that "867-5309" would be suitable - but even then, it raises some problems. In any case, the story belongs with Tommy Tutone - which should be expanded... Ian Pugh 20:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Hmm, it seems redirects have already been made. So my "poorly-titled" comment is withdrawn, but my vote still stands. Ian Pugh 20:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A pretty blaring Keep, don't redirect it to Tommy Tutone because the song is much more famous than the artist. —siroχo 20:35, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur. -- Jmabel 21:32, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Pehaps Tutone should be a redirect to this, then, as he's not famous for anything else. GWO 23:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, significant cultural reference and notable by itself, regardless of the artist. --Goobergunch 22:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and delete Tommy Tutone.
  • Keep. Ambi 04:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't make any sense to remove it. Kiand 18:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable song. A one-hit wonder's one hit. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Songs should be on their own pages for easy linking. If not before this song will need it when someone gets a hit with a cover version of it. bbx 22:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It has real content, no reason to delete it. -- McGravin 00:05, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. At worst, the song certainly deserves more than a couple of lines explaining the phenomena of calling the number. It was reasonably significant. As Siroxo pointed out, the song is actually more notable than the performer. I'm not sure how often a seven digit string has more recognition than the one who sings it, but it's certainly a worthy subject. Cool Hand Luke 06:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To further add my insight to this, I think the problem here arises in deciding what makes a song "important" enough to have it's own encylopedic entry away from the artist. And I must again stress that I do not think the song "867-5309" qualifies. The *ONLY* "cultural impact" it had was that it was A: a popular song, and B: it incited people to dial the number. It did not change anybody's lives or make a major societal statement. ANYONE could argue that any song that has achieved enough success to even make a random group of people aware of it could be "culturally significant" enough to be included, if that's all it takes. Why don't we put in a seperate page for "Get Naked" by "Methods of Mayhem" simply because it references the Tommy Lee/Pamela Anderson sex tapes? I can only assume that everyone voting "keep" are letting their sentimentality get in the way of logic and reason. Perhaps if the song had been so popular that it had been covered by 30+ other significant artists such as "Unchained Melody," that would speak volumes. But it isn't. It simply IS NOT. It's just a popular song that started a nutty phone-number-dialing fad. Pacian 04:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Pacian. Also, the song is ruining the reputation of Jenny. Nowhere in the song says the number is from a bathroom wall. The article can state that the song implies it, but the article states it as a fact. The article is filled with too much misinformation. It is beyond repair and cleanup. Just delete it. If someone really wants to write about the song, then they can start with a blank page The Crow 04:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, I've seen a "quirky" Cingular ad that match up men's choice of underwear with different cellphone covers. I doubt the community would want separate ENCYCLOPEDIA articles on "boxer shorts", "briefs", and "none". Please delete this silly entry already. The Crow 05:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable song which became a minor pop-culture phenomenon. The article sucks as it stands, but it could easily be whipped into shape, even just by the editors here. Gamaliel 06:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It's important enough song to deserve it's own article.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge and redirect the Tommy Tutone article. The song's much more notable than he is. Varitek 15:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know the song, but had only vaguely heard of the original artist, so certainly don't merge into Tommy Tutone. A merge the other direction might be OK but I'm neutral on that. Isomorphic 18:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • keep Cabalamat 21:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some girl called me at 45 minutes past midnight this morning (and it wasn't a complete stranger because she called my cell and knew my name), asking to have sex with me, and when I said it was late and I would talk to her tommorrow, she gave me 314-867-5309 (314 is a local area code in my city) as her cell phone number to call back. That number sounded familiar to me, so I googled it and the seventh hit out of 229,000 was this article. For comparison, I googled "breeder reactor" in quotes and got 304,000 hits, and nuclear breeder reactors are an important source of power for hundreds of thousands of people (more people than the number of hits). Oh, and the wikipedia article on breeder reactors was the first hit. And it was, admittedly, shorter than this ariticle.

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinion?

At the time of this post, the article says: "Although Tommy Tutone is primarily remembered for this song and commonly considered a "one-hit wonder", they actually had a Billboard Top 40 hit in 1980—two years before "Jenny" with "Angel Say No", which peaked at #38. "Angel Say No", however, is now almost completely forgotten by the general public."

I suppose this doesn't really violate NPOV, but it still seems like an opinion to me. -Todemo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.111.250 (talk • contribs) 08:26, August 1, 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Derick Mough and his social security number

Besides being a dubious entry this statement seems to be an invasion of provacy of sorts. Especially considering that the town and state is provided, and since 867 is not a current Social Security prefix, one could presumably complete this person's entire Social Security number by adding the prefix to 867-5309. Of course this assumes that he was born in Ohio. Still, I think this is a dubious entry and does it really add vaule to the article?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.226.5 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Jenny Boylan?

"It is often said that[weasel words] the phone number 867-5309 was that of an apartment building in State College, Pennsylvania, home of Penn State University."

So I looked up the area code for State College, PA and then did a Google search for 814-867-5309, and, lo and behold, there's a listing for:

Jennifer Boylan (814) 867-5309 1006 S Pugh St, State College, PA 16801

Whoa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.236.78 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2007‎ (UTC)


Referenced in Stephen Lynch Song

The number is mentioned in Stephen Lynch's song "Kill A Kitten", sometimes just called "Kitten". The song can be hear here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOfb9XgYlk4&feature=related The reference is right at the end. You decide if you want to add it or not, I just thought it nice to tell you about the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.79.187 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


9035-768

How often do people reverse Jenny's phone number? Did they ever discontinue use of the reversed version of Jenny's phone number in all area codes? I becha there are dimwits that might reverse a phone number they see or hear. If the reversed version Jenny's phone number was discontinued, mention it in the article. --SuperDude 03:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

- You could possibly reach a satanic Jenny. --User:Dotto 00:37 14 Oct 2005 UTC

-lol Possibly satans girlfriend?24.144.137.244 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In 1981, +1-areacode-903-5768 would not have been valid in most areas because a 0 or 1 in the second digit was reserved for area codes, while local exchanges could *not* have 0 or 1 in either of the first two digits. This was done so that calling a number like 1-234-5678 would actually reach (long distance) +1-your own area code-234-5678, something which was completely broken by issuing area codes with "wrong" middle digits from 1995 onward. In a few places which were short of numbers, this pattern was broken early (just for calls within that area code) by allowing 0 or 1 into the second digit of the local exchange (NYC and Chicago likely as early as the 1970's) but these were relatively rare. (A long-distance call from a +1-212- number to another in the same area code was too rare for this to matter as the code doesn't even reach to Brooklyn). The B52s had 606-0842 in a song title in the early 1980's, but in most places in North America that was an invalid number as it would be taken as area code 606 (eastern Kentucky) followed by 084-2xxx as an invalid local number (leading zero, and three digits too short). The number might exist now, but nobody cares as the corresponding vinyl album track was forgotten after only brief note three decades ago. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional Sightings

The number was also listed in, of all games, MDK2, where it was a sector on Earth containing Edmonton which was being attacked by a crawler. Does this merit inclusion?

It's in Splinter Cell, too!Is is Is 11:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

MMORPG Everquest trivia

I saw the section it was in, but I didn't think that MMORPG Everquest counted as "popular culture." Obscure culture is more like it. Also, just because it's true doesn't make it notable.

This is the trivia in question:

  • In the MMORPG Everquest, players can obtain an item named "Jenniy's Two-tone Cuirass" from the zone boss Grieg Veneficus. This item is a breastplate, and grants the wearer 8 strength, 6 dexterity, 7 stamina, 5 charisma, 30 wisdom, and 9 intelligence, among other benefits.

I think it ought to be taken out. —Cleared as filed. 03:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see this piece of information survived, as a reformed 4 year EQ player it made the article for me. I never knew / noticed that. Little things like that are what make wiki wonderful. 24.69.132.107 03:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No way is this a true piece of trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason?

One explanation I've read, that makes the most sense to me, is that it's simply the diagonals on a touch-tone phone. 86-753-09 form three diagonal lines Nik42 04:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Theories about this number?

I believe that there is some more infomation about this number out there, especially about claims to its origin. Anybody have some suggestions? lykoped 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

8675309 is prime

Is it of any interest that the number 8675309 is prime? 67.166.242.232 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's been known for a long time. lykoped 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? 911 is prime as well. Do we list that for 9-1-1? This article is about a song whose title includes a phone number and associated problems with the phone number 867-5309. In math, 867-5309= -4442. Should we list that as well? Do we actually need x is a prime number on every page that has numbers on it? Maybe if the song was titled "8,675,309 Is Not A Prime Number" you could add the fact that it actually is. -- 24.17.34.222 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked and 55 out of the 1000 possible numbers from 8675000 to 8675999 are prime numbers. So with about a 5.5% chance of a number in this range being a prime, looks like it's really not a noteworthy coincidence. Unless of course there is any evidence to suggest that this number was chosen because it was a prime. mmj (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, it's a twin prime as well, as pointed out by XKCD[4]. I don't know how interested in prime numbers the original singers might have been... Wyvern (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
6060-842, however, is not prime. :) 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6AD (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

number removed

A listing of a telephone number is removed here [5]. That anon has been on IRC #stewards about it. That person says that "he" is not "Jamie" . And he finds it not funny that people keep telephoning him. On a normaly day 50 a 100 a daybut now it was up to 1500 calls a day he says. That can not be funny. I would like to request to keep that number of the article. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am this user, I receieved a total of 1858 confirmed wikipedia related phone calls. I've asked that this number please not be reposted. --Somitho 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex Call

That's an odd coincidence that one of the members of the song's name is Alex 'Call'. 4.235.117.132 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Beatles???

Having listened to the intro to Sgt. Pepper's several times, I can find no discernible similarity between it and Tommy Tutone's 80's wonder. Unless anyone can tell me more specifically where to look or defeat me using more sophisticated methodology, I suggest that this point be taken down as a) not true and b) original research. Mjl0509 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The last riff that leads "Sgt' Pepper" to "With a Little Help From My Friends" is pretty much the same... Also, it's very similar to the B-52's song "6060-842." Codackussell 07:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This song was a single

Of course this was a single. I owned it. The catalog # is Columbia Records 02646 and the B-side was "Not Say Goodbye". It hit the top 5 on the Billboard Hot 100. It would never have charted at the time unless it was released as a single. Unless any objections or other reason given, I'm changing the infobox to single from song. - eo 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent news item on the number controversy v/v plumbing

[6] Anchoress 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section about the litigation. The news stories aren't clear, but my guess is that the decision in Gem's favor came on a motion for a preliminary injunction. If so, there will probably be further litigation in the District Court. I'll try to remember to look for a published decision so that our article can be more specific. JamesMLane t c 01:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard J. Reynolds High School Claim

I am removing the claim that (336)867-5309 was the phone number for Richard J. Reynolds High School when the song was released. In the North American Numbering Plan, the middle digit of all area codes was a 0 or a 1 until the year 1995. Hence it is impossible for the area code 336 to have existed in 1982.

The 336 area code came into being in 1997. In 1982, Winston-Salem (where RJRHS is located) was part of the 919 area code. It moved to area code 910 in 1993 and to 336 four years later. Jsc1973 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture?

Should pop culture references to the number be mentioned? Just wondering... soldierx40k 04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps extremely important ones, but I recently deleted the "popular culture references" sections becuse it was long, unsourced, and full of useless trivia, which is discouraged under policy. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the paragraph, "The band and label eventually changed their story as to the number's origins, claiming it to be a random number that the songwriters came up with." from the end of the section. There is no indication of any other story of the origin, so saying that the story changed is pointless if not confusing. -Freekee (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills

When one calls Beverly Hills (310) 867-5309 a male voice says something like: "Jenny is not here but Jack is to leave a message for Jenny..." when he finishes talking the voice mail providers voice states that the mailbox is full. Dreammaker182 (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

not a reliable source

the following has been removed from the article because personal web pages are not reliable sources and unsourced or poorly sourced material can be challenged and removed from the article. Find a reliable source to back this statement and it can go back in. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • In December 2004, a New Jersey high school student called all the 867-5309s in every area code within North America and found that nearly all the numbers were not in service.[7] A handful of the numbers did refer to Jenny, however, and some even played bits of the song on their answering machine greeting.

Citing Associated Press stories

The article cites the telemarketer story at http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0308/502851.html to Associated Press, which is correct because it's an AP story. But, I can understand also wanting to have the actual publication name in which the story appeared in the cite. Looking around at a few articles, it seems like there are a number of articles that do it like it's currently done here -- cite the story just to AP. Thoughts? Johnsu01 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an AP byline on the page, am I missing it somewhere? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No AP dateline, but near the bottom it reads "© 2008 The Associated Press." I originally added this cite, to a clearly-slugged AP story. At some point, that link rotted, and someone substituted the WJLA link. It's not clear to me whether the story on the WJLA story is the same story, or an AP story. TJRC (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
copyright on the website is good enough for me. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Searching on the text also makes it pretty clear that it's an AP story--several other possible sources for it.Johnsu01 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence about someone who once sued someone

Removed the following anecdote:

One woman once sued because of prank calls she received. During litigation, the attorney for the defense claimed the number in the song was the non-existant 6 digit telephone number 867-530 followed by the exclamation "oh!".[citation needed]

A woman of unknown identity sued someone of unknown identity, on some unknown date, for an unknown number of prank calls, with no reference to another source of this information, and it was all based somehow on this song. There's no way anybody else could ever research such a vague claim. mmj (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Commercial uses

A company (a plumbing or flooring company, I think) in the north Dallas area used the phone number as their own (area code 214, I think), and even used the Tommy Tutone song in their TV advertisements. I haven't heard the ad in many months, though, so I'm not sure if it's still in use. A Google search[8] still turns up lots of hits for that number in that area code alone. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There also used to be a web site called something like "Where's Jenny?" that listed all known active 867-5309 numbers in all U.S. area codes, but I can't seem to find the site any more. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sample

Normally, there would be an audio sample in the chart at the topof the page. I believe that this is in order--98.151.241.73 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Article name

I moved it back to its original location, as the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#En-dashes in phone numbers seemed to be leading this way. I had a box displaying in the title of the Firefox window, so the previous name was definitely broken. No reason not to leave the figure dash in the text of the article, of course.

Please chime in at the above discussion before moving it back, please. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover by blink-182?

The article states the song was covered by blink-182. I cannot find any references to this on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.248.110 (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Blink-182 has been removed. I checked everywhere on the internet and even their doscographies and there is no record of them covering this song. Since it was unsourced, it was removed. I guess that it was just someone that wanted to try a test edit.

Thanks though for the heads up.Frschoonover (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Move Me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{movereq|867–5309 (Jenny)}}

867-5309/Jenny → 867–5309 (Jenny) — Page titles should not have slashes in them. Hamtechperson 02:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose why would you place parentheses into the title? Why is the hyphen changing? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - The hyphen changes because of the Manual of Style. If the name of the song includes the slash, then it should stay there. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment The MOS does not cover this situation. It is not a real phone number, it is a title, it is neither a conjunction nor a disjunction, it's just a hyphen with no more meaning than that. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article should have the same name as the title of the song. The title is "867-5309/Jenny". See, e.g., [9], [10], etc. Not a parenthesis in sight. TJRC (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst we are advised not to use the slash in article titles, the Manual of Style is unclear whether it can be used as part of a proper noun, which a song title is. There is no technical reason why a slash cannot be used, unlike for example, a number sign (#), which causes problems with the MediaWiki software. The appropriate section at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) reads: In namespaces where the subpage feature is enabled, the forward slash (/) is used to separate a subpage name from its main page name. However subpages are disabled in the main namespace, so article names can contain slashes if appropriate – there is no need for such titles to be fixed. The discussion linked above concluded that hyphens should be used in phone numbers, not the emdash. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN Hamtechperson 02:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blanking

Article has been blanked and vandalised. I have not been able to get a revert to take, so I have blanked the vandalism. I will ask another user to attempt to revert to the last constructive edit. katherine_a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

 Done - Working on restoring the ref at the moment.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

xkcd reference

Does anyone think this reference [11] to the web comic xkcd (which I adore) should stay? It was added by an anonymous editor, and after being deleted was re-added by a newly registered editor who I suspect is the same individual.

Yes, the "pop culture" section is already a god-awful mess, but shouldn't we be striving to clean it up rather than to proliferate "interesting trivia" as the contributor puts it?

The irony here is that xkcd itself has commented on the absurdity of this practice: [12] TJRC (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WebTV

I recall the Microsoft WebTV thin client set-top boxes would call home to Microsoft for updated firmware if you shut the box off and then punched 8675309 into the keypad. There are likely also instances where the number is used in documentation, example.org-style, on the presumption that it already gets so many misdirected calls that it is not a usable number. Should these be mentioned? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Other songs

Yes, there are other songs based on phone numbers. However, they are not related here, unless reliable sources say they are. Why? Consider Star Wars. Should we list every scifi war movie? Every good vs. evil war movie? "Star Wars" is one person, aided by a coward, a tin man and a dog, in their search for a magic man who can help a girl who can't get home because of an evil magic person. Should be list "The Wizard of Oz"?

In general, the "See also" section is used to list other articles not already linked in the article that would be discussed if this article were more complete. A more complete article here would not discuss "634-5789 (Soulsville, U.S.A.)", "2-6-5-8-0", "Operator", "777-9311", "853-5937", "Lonesome 7-7203", etc. unless reliable sources discuss those songs in the context of this one. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 867-5309/Jenny. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 867-5309/Jenny. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:867-5309/Jenny/Archive_1&oldid=1064014157"