Talk:Downtown (Petula Clark song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Downtown (Petula Clark song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Information regarding covers

The song has obviously been covered several times - with high profile releases coming from Dolly Parton and most recently Emma Bunton. The information regarding those covers is just as important to the article as information regarding the original release and creation of the song. The article is about the song itself - not the fact its Clark release.

Information I have added has been removed so I have replaced it - if its continued to removed, and without discussion, debate and a consensus being reached - I will contact the moderators to deal with the situation. Rimmers 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the original song "Downtown" as recorded by Petula Clark. Subsequent cover versions deserve mention within the text of the article but do not warrant separate info boxes like the one Rimmers persists in adding. If we added an infobox for every cover version of a song, the article would be endless. The info about Bunton's cover version has NOT been removed, as Rimmers claims - only the extraneous infobox has. SFTVLGUY2 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Downtown" is Petula Clark's signature song and associated with her more than anyone else. I believe Emma Bunton's version has been correctly noted with the other covers and doesn't deserve an infobox of its own. If you're going to give one to Emma then you need to do the same for every other person who has recorded the song. I agree with SFTVLGUY2 that if every version had its own infobox this article would run on forever. If Rimmers wants to write extensively about Emma's version than it should be done in the article called Emma Bunton, not here. ConoscoTutto 18:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why Emma Bunton's release has to be deleted. All the other song pages INCLUDE their covers -- Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now), Endless Love (song), Take My Breath Away, Bringin' on the Heartbreak, Lady Marmalade, I Love Rock 'N Roll.... And note that Emma Bunton's is a single release, not an album cut. If we're looking at wide chart success as a reason (and I realise many of these are Mariah Carey songs), "Bringin'" failed as a single, and Britney's version of "I Love Rock N Roll" was not a North American release and did not chart high elsewhere. SKS2K6 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an infobox for Bunton's version is added, then why not infoboxes for Parton's, Sherman's, the B-52's, and every other one as well? I believe it's sufficient to mention these covers solely within the text of the article. You need to draw the line somewhere. SFTVLGUY2 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFTVLGUY2, you have removed more than just the info box - your reversed all the edits I made to the article, including tracklisting and chart information - therefore I am going to reverse your vandalism and reinstall the edits I made. I will not however re-add the info box until more discussion has taken place and a consensus reached. I am also going to ask a moderator to monitor the article: you seem to believe because you created it you have some divine say over what goes in it. You dont. As SKS2K6 has illustrated, other articles contain information regarding covers.

Also, I would like to welcome ConoscoTutto to the conversation. I have to say, the similarities between yourself and SFTVLGUY2 are stiking. You both have the same writing style, your profiles are almost identical and you have edited the same articles. Its almost as if you're the same person! I'll mention this small fact when I speak to a moderator and ask them to check the IP addresses of you "both"...cos surely it cant be an alias?! Rimmers 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW "ConoscoTutto", the information relating to Emma's release do not belong on her artist page - it belongs on the song's article. It is information relating to the song - not the artist, therefore belongs on this page. Rimmers 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never have claimed the fact I created the article does not mean others may not add to it. However, "Downtown" is first and foremost a PETULA CLARK song, and info about the multiple cover versions that followed her original recording, including charting, should be limited to inclusion within the text, not given sub-heads or infoboxes. Why should this article include tracklisting for an Emma Bunton CD that has NO bearing on it, other than that it includes the song this article discusses? That's useless extraneous info that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And to categorize it as an "Emma Bunton song," just because she recorded it, is ridiculous. Are you suggesting every tune she has recorded throughout her career should be classified as an "Emma Bunton song"? Finally, in response to your posting at the top of the page, in which you state, "The article is about the song itself - not the fact its Clark release," I don't believe you can decide what intent I had in mind when I created this article in the first place. SFTVLGUY2 19:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Petula Clark article - it is an article about the song. Therefore information regarding other high profile releases is relevent and should be included - as it is on other articles as SKS2K6 has pointed out. And the information has everything to do with the "topic at hand" because as I have pointed out it is an article about the song - not the artist. Rimmers 19:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "emma bunton song" category is there because it is a song that Bunton has released; it - like all other artists - used to be called "emma bunton singles" but that was changed by convention. As for your last point, I can decide what your intent was because it is clear from reactions. That is also why I have reported you to an admin and asked them the monitor this article. Rimmers 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you persist in claiming "This is not a Petula Clark article - it is an article about the song," when as its creator I know better than you what the subject of the article is. Following your theory, every cover version of "Downtown" needs to be given a separate sub-heading, yet it's only Bunton's that you insist on adding. Why is that? Several days ago I requested mediation of this issue and I'm still awaiting a response. SFTVLGUY2 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly believe that Template:Emma Bunton is an appropriate addition to this article? What do her previous albums and singles or other articles pertaining to her have to do with the topic at hand? 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a template: it is convention to add the artist's template to the singles that they release. That is basic knowledge when editing music articles on Wikipedia. Rimmers 21:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unfair to remove the infobox, template and category about Emma Bunton's cover. If you peoples don't know her and you keep in charge about what should be in the article well you're totally wrong. In the other articles like this, it is allowed to put the template, infobox and the category of the singer who revive the song.--hottie 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above stupidity is why I no longer give money to Wikipedia. Removing the cultural reference to the song from the movie Flight of the Intruder was just sheer vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.96.76 (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

I'm not formally advocating on this article, but I'm giving you my opinion of what should happen to defuse this situation. That is: the text on Bunton's release should be moved to a new page: Downtown (Emma Bunton cover), and have a disabiguation link at the top of this page to indicate the existance of that. I think that what's happening now, with the infobox, isn't really approriate for the original. Thanks - M a rtinp23 20:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a second informal opinion, that seems like a good idea. The new cover seems notable on it's own, and would constitute it's own article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this does defy naming conventions, I think we can look over it, in the background of how much there is to write about Bunton's release (failing that, just put a bit of text in here about her release, no infoboxes or catgories, and a link to an article about the album/single). M a rtinp23 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point. It defies conventions. And from what I know about other Wikipedia debates, we are about keeping conventions the same. I don't necessarily care about the details (the infobox, the categories, whatever). All I'm saying is the fact that song pages are about the song, not necessarily about the artist. The fact that it was Petula Clark's song first does not make it hers only, even if hers was the biggest hit. All the other examples that I've showed show this. Is Emma Bunton's notable enough to deserve another page? I think no, because it's a simple cover and not that different than the original. Same with Dolly Parton's; I don't know why she was basically obliterated from the page. SKS2K6 21:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (song) mentions its three versions, all single releases, and mentions the non-single release in a little blurb. That's what I think should go here. (With the infoboxes...I don't have an opinion, although I personally think it may clutter things a bit. But I don't know how they work and where they should go.) SKS2K6 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - that is another option - follow the Angels (song) model, which works well there. My only concern is that to balance the article, a Dolly Parton section may need to be written, bt it's good that we're trying to build consensus here. M a rtinp23 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt at sorting this out, but 2bh I tend to agree with SKS2K6 that it defies convention; Bunton's cover of Downtown is notable enough for it warrent sufficent space within the article - but it is not big enough to warrent an article in its own right. If you look at I Will Always Love You, despite the Houston cover being far more notable than the original release, they are still within the same article. And so it should be, because the article is about the song - all apsects of the song, and not the artist. Conventions on Wikipedia are there for a reason and I dont really see any reason to change that in this case. There is conflict in opinion, but I dont see any grounds within SFTVLGUY2's arguement at all; its clear he doesnt want his article having additional information. But that is his problem.
The fact of the matter is that Bunton's release is a high profile release within the UK - and even if it wasn't, for example if it charts lowly, then that shouldnt be a determining factor in whether the information about the release should be added or not.

The problem I have with SFTVLGUY2 is that he reversed any edits made to the article - including edits made to the information regarding the 'original' release; that is out of order - he doesnt have the right to say that edits I make are needed. For example, in adding an introduction the article adds to the integrety of the article - if he doesnt like that then he should start a discussion here and ask for consensus. Its clear he has no intentions of doing anything of the sort.

But in terms of this article, it is about the song - all aspects of the song, not just the original release information by Clark. It should be expanded to include all relevant information regarding other covers too, such as Parton's. Rimmers 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite happy (as an external party) for that. I think that yourself and SFTVLGUY2 have got very close to breaking WP:3RR, which can lead to a block. We need to try to get a consensus (and FOLLOW it) here before either of you edit the main page again. M a rtinp23 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given what yourself and SKS2K6 have said I think the consensus emerging is to follow the Angels/I Will Always Love You model of including information regarding covers. That is something which I personally strongly agree with given the already existing convention of doing that. Its something I was trying achieve from day one and the resulting conflict is childish, to say the least. Rimmers 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, if I may lob in another opinion... First of all I've looked through the history of this debate and hope to see people cease full-scale reversion of others' edits, along with unwarranted accusations of vandalism. It seems to me the consensus may be moving towards the "Angels" model, which admittedly doesn't look too bad; it's certainly better than this page as it is currently with a half-arsed Bunton section (I know, Rimmer, if you had your way it wouldn't look half-arsed). However, whilst there may more instances of this method, there are also examples of notable covers having their own articles, e.g. Jessica Simpson's version of "These Boots Were Made for Walkin'". Frankly I can see the reasoning behind that also as it eliminates a question that's been raised by a number of people in this discussion, namely where you draw the line with the infoboxes and extensive info on various covers, i.e. Bunton, Parton, B52s, etc, etc. While I tend to agree with Rimmers in most of what he's had to say, I disagree that there's not enough info on the Bunton cover to not warrant an article of its own. This would also eliminate the issue of an Emma Bunton template in an article for a song primarily associated with another artist (who doesn't have a template), i.e. Petula Clark. There's another point to raise on this article but will make a new section to keep separate. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the most recent edit I've made should satisfy all interested parties. Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still missing Dolly Parton's section..... :P But more importantly, regarding "These Boots...": it changed significantly from the original, which is why it has its own page; it says that the lyrics were significantly changed. SKS2K6 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re. "Boots", SKS2K6 (think I've managed to avoid hearing Simpson's for myself, actually). Regardless, making a separate article addresses the potential proliferation of cover infoboxes/sections and other artist templates, which is potentially greater on this song than on "Angels" for instance. Nevertheless, if the consensus is to include a few here, then let's do it properly, i.e. in the fashion it's done on "Angels". The current version of this article does not do that, it still looks half-arsed - there's no infobox for the Bunton cover and no separate section for the Parton version. I'm sure Rimmer is all set to add them but is everyone agreed on that? Cheers, Ian Rose 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFTVLGUY2, the edits you have made do not satisfy all parties - and you've made major edits to the article, even though you were told not to by Martinp23! You've removed the EB template and Emma Bunton songs category - two things that need to be put back into the article! Also, you've removed the introduction to the article when there was no need whatsoever to do that. You've also reversed smaller edits such as linking to the correct Grammy Award article, etc etc etc. It is not acceptable. Rimmers 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, although I take your point, the example of the Boots article is a poor one 2bh; if Wikipedia naming conventions are followed then that article should be included in the same article as the original release. As I mentioned earlier, its the song the article is about, not the artist.

But getting back to this article, the issue over whether every cover of the song should be covered in detail isnt important imo. For example, from my understanding, the Dolly Parton cover is only a minor release that didnt chart on the Hot 100 (only the Country charts in the US). Now, where the song charted shouldnt determine whether its included, but obviously the amount of information available on that release is going to be minimal. The bigger covers - such as Bunton's, is obviously going to include more information simply because there is more to write about Rimmers 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rimmers, I suggest you carefully read all the comments above. Among them is one by Ian Rose, who states, "This would also eliminate the issue of an Emma Bunton template in an article for a song primarily associated with another artist (who doesn't have a template), i.e. Petula Clark." That template definitely does NOT belong in an article about this or any song, as it relates solely to Bunton's past achievements and has no direct bearing on this song itself. Furthermore, I did NOT make "major" edits, I simply removed the Bunton template and categories, a suggestion made by M a rtinp23 above - "just put a bit of text in here about her release, no infoboxes or categories, and a link to an article about the album/single)." As for changing the "linking to the correct Grammy Award article," I have no idea what you mean, as both Grammy links lead directly where they should. Finally, I didn't remove the "introduction" to the article, as it never had one when I wrote it well over a year ago, a fact that didn't concern you in the least until Bunton came along with her recording. If it didn't bother you then, it shouldn't bother you now. Clearly you are not willing to accept any compromise on this matter - you want it your way, period. SFTVLGUY2 14:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's taken slightly out of context (which is just up the page). That was my first suggestion, having just seen the WP:AMA case brought by SFTVLGUY2, and deciding to informally attempt mediation. Since, I have expressed other suggestions and retained no real preference to any (my suggestions are just appeasement, to try to form a compromise). Hope this clarifies my position here. M a rtinp23 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFTVLGUY2, the degree to which you are selectively reading this discussion is astounding. The consensus emerging is to follow the Angels model - i.e.. to include information relating to all the major releases, including infoboxes. You did not add that to the article, therefore your edits do not follow the consensus emerging in this discussion. As for the template, if you know anything at all about Wikipedia you will understand that musical templates are added to all articles relating the singers releases: it is irrelevant to this discussion that it contains links to Bunton's previous release; it belongs - by convention - in the article and will be re-added (as will the category links). As for the changes I made to the article last week (or whenever it was), I added correct links to the relevent Grammy article (which was to Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Song, the award previously known as Best Rock and Roll Song) - and you removed it. You did the same thing with other useful additions made to the article.
You are consistantly removing additions made to the article which are useful and follow conventions on other articles - such as the Angels article. You can try and state its I that is not willing to compromise etc all you want, but it is very clear looking at this discussion and the edits you have made (including reversing Hotwiki's additions, which followed the consensus emerging on this page) that the shoe couldnt be more firmly on the other foot. Rimmers 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFTVLGUY2, a consensus is quite abundantly clear here, and this is to go towards the Angels model (I, myself, am going to remain a neutral party). One of the fundamental ideologies of wikipedia is that anyone can edit it - this means that you cannot own an article, and must be willing to yield to consensus, even if you created the article and feel you have a right to it. SFTVLGUY2, the only thing I can suggest now is for you to either go with the consensus as has emerged, or request a third opinion (at WP:3O). The only way that the third opinion will work is if your agree to be bound by its decision (also, the opinion may be withheld, based on Ian Rose's comments above, which don't seem to have impressed the apparent consensus upon you. The best way to solve this is for you to disengage now, rather than needing to take the case further (about cases, I'm afraid we have a huge WP:AMA backlog, but yours will be taken by an advocate ASAP!). Please consider my advice, M a rtinp23 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, one of the pitfalls of being able to see more than one point of view and not getting too steamed up about one or the other is that your comments will be used to buttress arguments from all sides! To restate my position, if that's really needed: 1) I stand by my points re. the efficacy of making Bunton's version a separate article (also intially suggested by Martinp); 2) However, the consensus is for the "Angels" method, which includes infoboxes and templates, and that is clearly a way of dealing with multiple notable versions of a song that is common in Wikipedia. So once again I say, if we're going with the Angels format, let's do it properly. Hotwiki's inclusions of the Bunton infobox and also her template should be reinstated. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true! It looks like the Bunton infobox has been re-entered by an IP now. If any observers have a strong disagreement with this action (which has occurred as a result of (or by coincidence) and with the blessing of the consensus), could I ask them not to engage in edits to revert the addition, but rather to open up discussion here. Should such a revert be made, I would likewise ask those who support the addition not to revert (yes... I hate edit wars :)). To this end, I am suggesting that the zero revert rule is followed. Thanks M a rtinp23 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I created this article, I feel I was within my rights to move it to a new title, one I should have selected originally. The Bunton version is now a separate article (see Emma Bunton's Downtown). This finally should resolve what has been a lively discussion. Thanks to all who participated! SFTVLGUY2 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you have gone completely against the consensus in this discussion. It is not within your right to move the article: you do not own the article! The article should be merged back immediately, and disciplinary action should be taken against SFTVLGUY2 - or at the very least, once the article is moved back it should be locked to prevent further abuse.
You have also removed all the edits I made to the Petula Clark section of the article last night - including removing references/sources and appropriate links. You have no right whatsoever to do that. Its been a lively discussion indeed - and you have utterly disregarded the outcome of it (i.e.. to follow the Angels model and include info regarding other releases in this article). Rimmers 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFTVLGUY2, how can I put it? The phrase 'lost the plot' looks appropriate. You've managed to do something I had earlier advocated, i.e. splitting the Bunton version into its own article, yet in a way that I can only condemn (I'm starting to feel like Harry Callahan in Magnum Force when confronted by the vigilantes who can't understand why he's not with them). You've even had the gall to speak of making the Clark page safe from 'vandalism' in one of your edit summaries, when the only person acting in such a way is yourself. Speaking now to everyone else involved, who respect the consensus, let's follow Martinp's recommendation re. zero revert rule for now while we decide on the most appropriate course of action - I suggest it's not a case of discussing the page's content anymore, it's about returning it to its recent form and protecting it from a disruptive editor. Cheers, Ian Rose 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, could not agree more. As Martinp23 stated there should be a zero revert rule - yet another thing completely disregarded by SFTVLGUY2; I've contacted Martinp23 and requested that she reverse the edits made by SFTVLGUY2 back the version it was earlier today (a version, edited by myself, Hotwiki and Ian Rose which, imo at least, fits the consensus that has emerged on this page - that is to follow the Angels model). Ive also requested disciplinary action to be taken against SFTVLGUY2 as his actions are quite clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia, and he has completely ignored the consensus emerging on this page and has also totally ignored the comments on an adminstrator. This is beyond ridiculous - and the term "lost the plot" is a mere understatement in my opinion... Rimmers 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin is a male name! So I'm a he :) I've got a couple of things to do, then I'll move straight on to trying to resolve this. M a rtinp23 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! So sorry...its the purple font dude! Made me think of Martina ;-) Rimmers 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha ok - it goes purple when the pages linked are visited (by default, it's blue :)). M a rtinp23 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've reverted STFVLGUY2's edits, the main reason being for maintenance reasons - if edits were made to the newly created redirect page, it's made about a million times harder to fix! Furthermore, so that nothing similar happens again, I've put move protection on the article. In the circumstances, I've followed WP:0RR (also known as Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary) to the best extent possible, which unfortunately was to revert completely (due to the disruptive nature of the edits, and the lack of GDFL attribution on the Bunton move). STFVLGUY2: your edits were along the lines of an unapproved fork, and were completely against consensus. Also, you made a move without (read: completely against) the existing consensus, and a move which was actually disruptive to readers. Please remember: Wikipedia is there for its readers, and not for someone's personal agenda. Now, the considered consensus here is to follow the Angels model (as has been done) - going against that consensus without discussion is disruptive. So, please discuss! M a rtinp23 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intent to be "disruptive," I'm simply trying to arrive at an article that satisfies everyone. When I first created it, infoboxes did not exist, which is why I listed the original's international chart positions under a subheading. I have deleted that subhead and moved the chart positions to the infobox where they belong. I have also removed what I feel are superfluous chart trajectory boxes for the UK and Germany. Why stop there? Why not add such boxes for the US and every other country where the song charted? The number of boxes in this article was excessive and gave it a very cluttered look. I truly believe that as the article now reads - in logical chronological order and with all contributions (with the exception of the aforementioned chart trajectory boxes and the Bunton template) retained - it will satisfy all interested parties. Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clark single sleeve

Could I ask who removed the original black-and-white single sleeve for the Clark infobox and what their reasoning was? This current one appears to be for an album, not the single. If there's a decent single sleeve available, which there was, it should be used for the single and the album cover reserved for an album article. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, now that we've hopefully sorted the main content issue, could we come back to the Clark infobox picture? This is the original image for comparison with the current image in the article; the switch happened a couple of weeks ago with no specific reason cited. While I grant you the original isn't a perfect rendering, it seems adequate and is after all the single sleeve, obviously more appropriate for the single infobox than an album image. Does anyone have a serious concern with reverting to the original? Cheers, Ian Rose 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree - the current image seems to be an album sleeve; therefore it doesnt belong on this article. The original picture should be reinstated imo Rimmers 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current (blue) image is from the Netherlands' single Vogue DV 14256 Thomas279 (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the texts

As fare as I understand, Tony Hatch wrote the english text. But who were the authors of the french, german and italian version? I can't imagin they are also from Hatch. The artikel mentions so many details about the song and its versions but this information is missing. --84.58.169.169 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Czech version of the song called "Pátá", but I don't believe that Clark ever sang it. I'm sure there are many versions in many other languages as well.Djob (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp
- In ...Baby One More Time on 2007-07-25 04:58:20, 404 Not Found
- In "Weird Al" Yankovic on 2007-08-12 23:08:15, 404 Not Found
- In Downtown (song) on 2007-08-13 01:05:34, 404 Not Found

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --Hermes Bot 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of notable cover version single covers and sound files

Since the images, File:Dollydowntown.jpg and File:DowntownEmmaBuntonCover.jpg, and the sound files, File:Downtown by Petula Clark.ogg and File:DowntownSample.ogg have been removed by one editor citing WP:NFCC and reverted by three other editors also citing WP:NFCC, I am starting a discussion here so that the images is not deleted simply for being orphaned.

The single covers for the Dolly Parton and Emma Bunton cover versions pass the points of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#3 is met because the single covers is used for identification its respective versions and Petula Clark single cover cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of the cover versions. WP:NFCC#8 is met because the single covers are used for identification and the images increas readers' understanding and not having them would be detrimental to the understanding of the cover versions. The single covers passes the first example of acceptable use of fair images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

The current consensus for single covers in section infoboxes to represent notable cover versions are that they pass WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI. Since WP:SONGCOVER says notable cover versions should be covered in the article about the song and not have its own article, but if they had their own articles, the images would be acceptable there, so they are acceptable in the sections of the song article. The single covers are not alternate covers for Petula Clark cover, it is the primary cover for the cover versions and should be treated as such. If it is felt that the images should still be removed than the images should be taken to Wikipedia:Files for deletion instead of simply removed from the article.

The current consensus for sound files are that they are acceptable for use in single/song articles as long as they are small samples of the song. Aspects (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Both are notable cover versions of a well-known singer. And the cover versions have a couple of sub-sections. So they deserve a single art cover just like the original version.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Downtown (Petula Clark song). 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: 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) 21:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downtown (Petula Clark song). 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/20160303191002/http://www.retrosellers.com/features152.htm to http://www.retrosellers.com/features152.htm

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) 12:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Downtown (Petula Clark song). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.retrosellers.com/features149.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparadask/index.php?hitp=R
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109112106/http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/arts/story.html?id=3e6b0704-dd72-4350-84c7-ef87c6b6f646 to http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/arts/story.html?id=3e6b0704-dd72-4350-84c7-ef87c6b6f646

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: 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) 18:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bunton cover

I don't see why any cover version deserves a huge, article-length treatment within this song article. It is totally out of proportion and is full of trivial details. E.g., the full chart history; why is not the chart history of every cover version not given equally exaggerated treatment? At best, most of this should be moved to the Emma Bunton article, and if it doesn't belong there, it doesn't belong anywhere. Zaslav (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please exclude the use of this song by the Nashville suspect

I think that including information about the suspect who used this song in the course of his evil and atrocious act is disrespectful to Petula Clark, who is a currently a 88 year old woman, and anyone who worked on this song, 56 years before the date the incident occured. It is irrelevant information about the song and does not expand knowledge regarding it. It's only relevance should be included in the article regarding the incident itself. I encourage those who edit the articles on wikipedia to please remove it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qellowszach (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It happened so it should be recorded here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.96.76 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

Hi. New here so I apologise for overlooking protocols and conventions. Listening to “Petula Clark Downtown. original version” on YouTube and reading in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_(Petula_Clark_song) that the second take was ultimately chosen as the completed track, I noticed a couple of misaligned beats, one 2 minutes 11 seconds into the song, the other at 2 minutes 47 seconds. If these are joins where different takes were edited together then the second take was not chosen as the completed track. Any suggestions for representing this in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_(Petula_Clark_song) ? --GlenCrust (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a reliable source for that. See WP:V and WP:OR. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions

We've been extremely lenient with the list of cover versions. Most are not notable and do not merit inclusion per WP:COVERSONG. I have removed the ones for which we no source and no article (in any language) for the band. I believe most of the rest should be removed too. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for the cover version section to be blown away, reduced to WP:COVERSONG qualifiers. I'll start soon. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just zapped 'em all. There were few or no COVERSONG qualifiers. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook as source

@BrownHairedGirl: Do you have a specific objection to using Facebook as a source for what Clark said, or are you just sprinkling these tags everywhere you see a Facebook link? Do you doubt that she said this? This appears to be acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GA-RT-22: I have been tagging all such uses where the ref is a bare URL. That is so that the work on filling bare URLs doesn't waste time filling URLs which should not be used as refs.

If you believe that the ref in question is appropriate, then the best remedy is to fill it with {{cite web}}. Then my searches will ignore it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]