Talk:Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In

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

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correct B side?

Present article says it's "Stoned Soul Picnic" but the listing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Dimension says it was "Don'tcha Hear Me Callin' to Ya?" and "Stoned Soul Picnic" was an earlier 1968 single with a B side of "The Sailboat Song" Some of the links to what appear to be singles there are actually to album articles. I have no idea which is correct.

Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings on Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (and also Hava Nagila)

MALAKAS..

No it isn't. It's about an INDIVIDUAL SONG. Back in the old days of actual Gramophone records (which you seem to be completely and utterly ignorant of), they put something on the backs of records, in order not to waste a vinyl surface -- but, about 99 times out of a hundred, only one side of a physical 7-inch single 45 RPM record charted, or was relevant to the commercial success of what was on the other side of a record. The "B"-sides of songs are sometimes discussed on the article pages devoted to top-charting songs, but the article pages are basically about the "A"-sides of these records -- and to prove otherwise, you would need to find separate articles about a song vs. about the single of which the song was an "A"-side. I bet you won't be able to find any significant numbers of articles split in this way (it certainly isn't standard Wikipedia practice). AnonMoos 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The single was released in 1996 and that single went to #1 for 6 weeks and that is what the article is about and also about any covers made from that album. There are plenty of pages about old singles like this especially if it is covered later as well. KittenKlub 14:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that neither of the articles Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In and Hava Nagila bothers to mention the name of any songs on the B-sides of any of the actual single releases (as opposed to short albums/EPs)? That's because the articles are basically about the individual songs... AnonMoos 14:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it is prefered to have both the originals and the covers on the same page. And it is a very relevant part of the article. Read the Music guideline. Tracklists are a normal part of the page. So instead of destroying other people's work, how about find the original release, because that needs an infobox as well, however the producer, single chronology etc. are unknown. KittenKlub 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, these articles are basically about the individual songs. It would be more or less reasonable trivia to mention the "B"-sides which appeared on the flip-side of charting singles (though neither of the articles saw fit to mention this before you came along), but to burden the articles by including a whole elaborate cumbersome track listing of an EP or short album (NOT a "single" as this was traditionally understood) is simply outright nonsense. If you want to establish one article, or a series of articles, about Departed Animals albums, then do so -- but please don't insert information about them where it doesn't belong. Thank you. AnonMoos 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might help spelling the band correctly. It's Party Animals. I assume it is just an implied by continously misspelling them. Since it is a number one single it requires an article, however it is good practice to keep them together. There is plenty of discussion about that and unless it is a long article on its own right, it is prefered to keep it together with the original. And that also applies to "old" singles from 1969. KittenKlub 14:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew absolutely nothing about the Departing Animals good or bad, until you created antagonistic feelings by insisting on adding irrelevant material about them to individual song articles. AnonMoos 14:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Third opinion

Third party opinion requested, since this discussion is not heading in a fruitful direction. KittenKlub 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the WP:3O request:
WP:SONGS is specific on this. If the song an article is about was also released as a single, Template:Infobox single (with a cover, if possible) and a track list are to be added as well. And while I do not know about the prefered handling for cover versions of songs, I am positive that a discussion about this should take place on a higher level, not on the talk page for an individual work. - Cyrus XIII 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. There are several discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs about the merging or not, and even though merging is prefered there is no clear consensus. Somebody did ask for a guideline Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Guidelines for covers? however there has been no response to the question yet. KittenKlub 15:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is the Age of Aquarius

Not relevant to this article. Comments about *when* it starts should be conducted on the Age of Aquarius page, not here.Wjhonson (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what the article says now is contradictory. This change was presumed to occur at the end of the 20th century; however, astrologers differ extremely widely as to when. Their proposed dates range from 2062 to 2680. That year span is in the 21st century, of course. Perhaps if anyone cares there should simply be a link here to the Age of Aquarius article and no more. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 10:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should a parody be included?

One song in "Keep on Trekin': The MAD Star Trek Musical" was "Sung to the tune of 'The Age of Aquarius'" -- it talked about redshirts, and its title (if ever given) would have been "A Crew That's Dispensible". You can find out about this at [1], if you're so inclined. But I'll leave it to those more involved in this page to decide whether or not to mention this. 209.172.14.211 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC) jalp (non-member, just a browse-by kibitzer) . . . personal Webspace at members.triton.net/jalp[reply]

Black Singles?

I don't know if this is the official title for it, but does the chart really have to say "Black Singles" or can it be changed to the more modern, Hip hop singles. (That's what the page leads to I believe.) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.119.185 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Trivia

It seems to me the sections Live Cover Performances, Sampling, Parodies, and Appearances and references in other media are just unimportant, non-notable trivia to which fans of specific artist and media performances keep adding. In accordance with WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA I plan to delete these sections but wanted to give the opportunity for discussion first. --hulmem (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no discussion and more useless trivia has been added so I am deleting these sections. --hulmem (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In. 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/20070930201342/http://www.swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=The+5th+Dimension&titel=Aquarius+%2F+Let+The+Sunshine+In+&cat=s to http://www.swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=The+5th+Dimension&titel=Aquarius+%2F+Let+The+Sunshine+In+&cat=s

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly called "Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In"?

The article sometimes says "Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In" but the album cover picture clearly shows "Sunshine" not "Sun Shine". If this is not incorrect it should have some source for the alternative name. Update: The Grove Terminator album cover says it contains elements of "Let The Sunshine In", so I correct the article. Per Mildner (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian charts

The article's claim of a #3 peak for Australia differs from The 5th Dimension discography data, which claims a #4 peak for Australia. The article claims that "Aquarius"/"Let The Sunshine In" peaked at #3 on the Kent Music Report, but the corresponding link indicates that there was no Kent Music Report until May 1974. The tune peaked at #3 on the Go-Set chart. 98.149.97.245 (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]