Talk:I Think We're Alone Now

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I Think We're Alone Now 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

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

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal 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.

On 16 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to I Think We're Alone Now (song). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Infobox requested

An infobox was requested for the Tommy James & the Shondells version at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InnocuousPseudonym (talk • contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2007

Cleanup

This needs a fix - it's just an advert for Girls Aloud's version and no longer about the song. No Tommy James, Rubinoos, Tiffany etc. Looks like promotional vandalism - there seem to be older versions in more informative shape. I'll revert to one of those for now. Wait - no I won't. I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.202.113.254 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 November 2006

Alternative version

Wouldn't it be better to spilt Girl's Aloud version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.229.139 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 November 2006

The general way to handle songs that are covered and released as singles by multiple artists is to keep them on the same page (see, for example, the pages for other songs Girls Aloud have released as singles that were originally singles for other artists: See the Day (song), Jump (for My Love), I'll Stand by You). It's definitely not junk as Girls Aloud are a reputable band in the UK.

As far as the other artists who have also done "I Think We're Alone Now," here's what I'd advise:

If they have released the song as a single at it has charted in a major country, add another music single template and post it on the page

If they have merely covered the song and released it on an album, but it was not a single/did not receive airplay, create a sction called "Song Trivia" or something to that effect and mention that the song was also done by _____, _____, and ____ (perhaps linking to that artist or that album, if applicable).

Fabricationary 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't someone also mention how the Girls Aloud version adds NOTHING whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.9.114 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 January 2007

Previous versions

I'd like to see at very least least the date of each previous version. This might give a clearer picture of possible influences on subsequent releases. 81.131.44.4 17:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Peter k[reply]

Where's the original version?

I have to agree with earlier complaints. There is no reason why this article should be exclusively about the Tiffany or Girls Aloud versions. Where is the information on the far more famous original Tommy James recording? 23skidoo 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknhard's editing

I don't believe that it is necessary to remove relevant information about the other two versions, to give priority to the original. If you have useful information to add, regarding the original, by all means add it. However, do not remove content for the sake of making other limited information more prominent in the article. Smiles Aloud 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy James deserves the spotlight

Its really pathetic when a band does covers and passes them off as their own when the original is the best. Over time the original is forgotten and these artist that have no talent other than their voice just revive an old song and never let stupid people know that they copied it. The public needs to be reminded that Tommy James created this song, Tiffany didn't, and those no talent girls outloud hacks sure as hell didn't either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geeknhard (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Geeknhard.[reply]

Your personal preference for the original version does not mean you can remove all information on the Tiffany and Girls Aloud versions. Extraordinary Machine 16:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its just a big ad for the crappy band

At least change it so Tommy James' discography is there instead of the cover versions. They really don't need all that mention, all they need is something like, They did a cover of this song! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geeknhard (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Me First And The Gimme Gimmes

I don't believe that Me First and The Gimme Gimmes have ever covered this. I'm guessing that it is confusion with the Snuff cover. Jeff d kirby (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the radio ban of the Shondell's version?

I'm surprised this article says nothing of the attempts in the 60's to have this song banned from radio. It was considered to be too sexual for the public airwaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexmoron (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of notable cover version single cover

Since the image, File:IThinkWereAloneNowCD1Cover.jpg, has removed by one editor citing WP:NFCC and reverted by two other editors also citing WP:NFCC, I am starting a discussion here so that the image is not deleted simply for being orphaned.

The single cover for the Girls Aloud cover version pass the points of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#3 is met because the single covers is used for identification its respective versions and the Chairmen of the Board single cover cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of Girls Aloud's version. WP:NFCC#8 is met because the single cover is used for identification and the image increases readers' understanding and not having it would be detrimental to the understanding of Girls Aloud's version. The single cover 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 it had their own articles, the image would be acceptable there, so it is acceptable in the sections of the song article. The single cover is not alternate covers for the Chairmen of the Board cover, it is the primary cover for Girls Aloud's version and should be treated as such. If it is felt that the image should still be removed than the image should be taken to Wikipedia:Files for deletion instead of simply removed from the article.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me at the critical commentary of the cover image, SuperHotWiki? Not of the song, but specific commentary about the imagery on the cover that the picture of the cover helps readers to understand? I don't see a word about it in the article.—Kww(talk) 01:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Hotwiki was canvassing for support comments. Werieth (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a lie, canvassing for support comments? Thats a new low for you. You can check my edits on those talk pages and you will know that I was merely asking for their opinion, not their support.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a lie at all, SuperHotWiki. You only notified people that had already made the edit that you wanted them to make and were virtually guaranteed to make the same edit again and express the opinion you wanted them to. That's canvassing.—Kww(talk) 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Girls Aloud cover as identifying a notable cover version that passes all the points of WP:NFCC as expressed by SuperHotWiki. Aspects (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Is it just me or is the section for the "Girls Aloud" version much longer than it should be... 9 subsections for that one, compared to 6 for Tiffany and only 1 for the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.131.54 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I Think We're Alone Now. 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: 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) 10:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Think We're Alone Now. 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://www.webcitation.org/66eFNmZOD?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/girls%20aloud/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/girls%20aloud/

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) 19:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– No primary topic. The 2018 film gets a decent number of views. Schierbecker (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The song gets the majority of pageviews, and almost double those of the film. Justified primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear primary topic. No.1 in several countries. Film is relatively obscure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose on the strength of the long-term notability of the song. BD2412 T 02:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

How?

How has this page existed for any amount of time without actually having the lyrics? 2605:59C8:21BE:5210:8C8B:9DA4:77D0:ED40 (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]