Talk:I Had Too Much to Dream (Last Night)

I'm Only Sleeping

They say that I'm Only Sleeping by the Beatles is the first song using backwards guitar in 1966. Later that year I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night came out also about sleeping and also with backwards guitar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Troublewik (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 September 2009

Movie and TV Credits

I would like to see movie and TV show credits for this song. I could have swore that the song was used as a them song for a gangster show in the 80s. I was thinking Crime Story or Wiseguy, but it may have just been used in an episode instead. DurkNiblick (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

The article says: "The song describes a man who is suffering from symptoms of a hangover after having an affair with his lover, claiming he had 'too much to dream' the previous night."

Is there an authoritative source for this interpretation? I've always thought the song was about waking up from a dream of being with a woman. That's why she disappears when dawn comes -- the dream ends. He feels bad, having awakened, because the dream was so beautiful, and now he knows it wasn't real.

Craig418 (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I've deleted this claim ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Influential

User:Ravenswing wants to remove the word "influential" in reference to the collection Nuggets, arguing "not only does this not specify 'influential' on *what*, precisely, but this is unsourced as well". It seems to me that the adjective (which I did not add in the first place) is well-supported by the fact that the album title is a link to another Wikipedia article in which the album's influence and historical significance are discussed. Adequate sources are provided there. We should not have to repeat references on every page that mentions the album. Linking to the album's article is sufficient. Craig418 (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact you DO need to repeat the source here; as you no doubt are aware, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. WP:V holds that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." I will make that change again; do not revert my edit without adding an inline citation supporting your preferred wording. Ravenswing 18:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think I should take orders from you (which, by the way, I don't), but anyway, I referred this question for a third-party opinion and was told that "thorough discussion hasn't happened yet", so I guess we need to hash this out some more.

This article is not about Nuggets, which is only being mentioned in passing because it's a historically-important collection that some past editor believed (correctly, I think) was responsible for raising the profile of this song. To me it seems silly to need to provide a source for a single adjective on an item mentioned in passing when the main article about that item covers the question already and provides the necessary references. This is not the same thing as "using another Wikipedia article as a source"; the real sources are provided in the article about Nuggets and it would be a maintenance nightmare to have to repeat them on other pages where Nuggets isn't even the real subject. I think the point of calling Nuggets influential in this article is that it explains why the song became more widely known as a result of its inclusion in that particular collection (as opposed to any number of other collections the song has been included on over the years). Nuggets is, in fact, an influential and historically-important collection that has been reissued several times in the half century since its original release, so it seems weird that we have to argue about it. But your reference to "material whose verifiability has been challenged, etc." makes it seem like you disagree, though you offer no rationale for your disagreement. Craig418 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]