Jump to content

Talk:Like Dreamers Do

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Like Dreamers Do. There is clear consensus that this is the primary topic. Cúchullain t/c 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dreamers Do (The Beatles song) → Like Dreamers Do (Applejacks song) – Although written by Paul McCartney and credited as Lennon/McCartney this song was never released by the Beatles. The notable version was by the Applejacks. The move should be reverted per Wikipedia:SONGS#Naming. Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree – it was in The Beatles′ live act and recorded by them at their Decca audition in 1962 (as heard on Anthology 1) over two years before the Applejacks version. Therefore it was a Beatles song before it was an Applejacks song. Incidentally there is nothing in Wikipedia:SONGS#Naming that says what to do when a song has been recorded by more than one artist so I′m not sure why you linked to it. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(cur | prev) 03:51, 31 October 2012‎ Rm w a vu (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (88 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Rm w a vu moved page Talk:Like Dreamers Do (Applejacks song) to Talk:Like Dreamers Do (The Beatles song)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:19, 24 October 2012‎ JonathanLGardner (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (88 bytes) (0)‎ . . (JonathanLGardner moved page Talk:Like Dreamers Do to Talk:Like Dreamers Do (Applejacks song): Like Dreamers Do is also a top 30 UK hit for British singer Mica Paris. A page has recently been created for that single and thus this should be made ...) (undo) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi In ictu oculi. I have no objections to your suggestion. My problem is with calling it after a version which nobody is likely to be looking for i.e. a version performed live a couple of times 50-odd years ago. The notability of the band is not relevant. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is a version by an obscure group that barely cracked the Top 20 48 years ago more likely to be looked for than the original version performed by the most famous group in the world and available on a multi-million selling no 1 compilation album from the 1990s?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because 1.Anybody looking for the Beatles version will look at the album first, and 2. Anybody looking for the charting version will look for the Applejacks. And as I have already said, the notability of the artist is not relevant. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I moved it according to the original version being written and recorded by The Beatles, is is suitably assigned as such. I note that moves don't require discussion. One case in point is that "Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)" suits as a prior example of where the lesser known artist is referenced in the title. Yes, since Cole, Buckley and Wainwright's versions have been released, Cohen has ebbed from obscurity to popularity, but it doesn't detract from the fact that his version was basically nothing until later. Likewise, The Beatles came back from this setback stronger and, well, we know the rest. --rm 'w avu 10:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW It was not written by the Beatles, whereas Cohen wrote Hallelujah --Richhoncho (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It is a Lennon – McCartney original!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Lennon–McCartney and The Beatles - unless, of course, you are advocating merging these two articles. Be nice if editors opining actually understood the difference between performer and songwriter. At least ONE of us knows exactly what they are talking about! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIF This is a Lennon-McCartney composition of a song originally recorded by The Beatles, and minimally popularised by The Applejacks, but arguably, more people have subsequently heard The Beatles through Anthology than ever heard The Applejacks' version. Please be careful so as not to skew an argument with weasel words, too. --rm 'w avu 05:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel words? You wrote, "the original version being written and recorded by The Beatles," which so patently misleading. I pointed this out. I repeat the song was NOT written by the Beatles. End of story, let's keep to facts, shall we? Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC
There is nothing misleading about what Rm w a vu wrote. The Beatles′ songwriting team of Lennon and McCartney wrote the song, and recorded it two years before the Applejacks, therefore the original version was written and recorded by The Beatles. You are being needlessly pedantic, and as no one else has supported your position, I suggest we draw this discussion to a close.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my reference to weasel words was suggesting that cohen wrote Hallelujah, so by that merit, this ought to be "Like Dreamers Do (Lennon-McCartney song)", a precedence for which none has been set in popular music. --rm 'w avu 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a precedent to disambiguate songs by writer and by year, but pre-50's/60's - so it didn't apply here. However, there is quite a precedent to name after the first famous version - otherwise we finish up renaming and creating another bunch of redirects every time something is considered "more important" (which falls pretty much under WP:OR anyway). What is still not apparent, though, is why did you move the page anyway, as Hi In ictu oculi notes above?
Disambiguating by authorship has, in the pages I've seen, only happened in Classical music. Nonetheless, I moved it because the largest proportion of people who would search for the song is those seeking out The Beatles. Yes, it gets messy when things may change, but it's like like we're saying to rename "Superfreak" to "You Can't Touch This" simply because the later was more popular than the former, they're two distinctly different songs, in which the latter borrows from the former. In this case, the former, and original purpose of the song, is the name to which I changed the article, and the latter release, while admittedly more popular for the time, was essentially a cover. It is also unlike "I Wanna Be Your Man", which Lennon and McCartney wrote for the purpose of having The Rolling Stones perform it and only decided to play it themselves after; fortunately, as that's a possibly more confusingly individual song, it doesn't need disambiguation as this does. In simple terms: Two men wrote this song to play for their band, The Beatles. The performance didn't go bonkers, so they passed it on, and it was later heard by The Applejacks who chose to cover it. I don't see any way that it could be considered that the Applejacks' contribution to this piece could be more significant to the zeitgeist than The Beatles'. rm 'w avu 04:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Moving it back is the obvious solution, as this is clearly the more likely main article. Use a hatnote at the top for the other one. There shouldn't be a disambiguation for just two entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can can agree with this, if I had searched the history further back I would have probably suggested it. In ictu oculi has already suggested this solution. There is no point continuing to discuss with those that believe "zeitgeist" is a WP policy or guideline. It now needs Rm w a vu and Pawnkingthree to agree with us and we have a solution that suits all.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind disambiguating with a hatnote and giving this the undisambiguated/unencumbered article name, however given that the other song did reach a similar chart position as this (28 vs 20, both UK), and Mica Paris is actually still a notable performing artist, I'm somewhat uneasy to give the full thumbs up. Having said that, I'd never heard of her until coming across this article. rm 'w avu 00:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I use the term zeitgeist somewhat facetiously. There are many articles which utilise controversial or confusing disambiguators, and the consensus is generally built around what the common and most publicly referred to terminology for the core article. I broadly and sweeping refer to this as the zeitgeist. For instance, if the BBC or Entertainment Tonight were to talk about One Direction (I shudder to think) covering this song, do you think they would say "The Applejack's" song or "The Beatle's song"? I'm confident it would be the latter, and I'm sure I'm in the majority in that sense. Having said that, removing the disambiguator altogether is something I can agree on. rm 'w avu 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I understood that and replied accordingly. However, if One Direction did record this song and it did become "massive" there would be a clamour to name it after the "band of the moment." By sticking to the originally famous recording we can avoid this and the resultant "my band is bigger than your band" responses. It also makes sense to order the various artists in a timeline, rather than who is considered more famous/successful etc. There are many examples where subsequent recordings are more famous than the original. As a single the Applejacks version is more "notable" - as a song with the benefit of inherited notability, then the Beatles version is more notable. All rather irrelevant, I am more than happy without Applejacks used for disambiguation. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be suspicious of the apocalypse, should One Direction take this and make a success of it. They have no place dirtying up The Beatles, even the relatively obscure and archaic thereof. Nonetheless, I think we probably won't agree on the core argument, but let's remove the bracketed disambiguator and be done with it. Is there a doctor in the house? rm 'w avu 23:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the song was never released by the Beatles, I'd say the article's title should either be "Like Dreamers Do" or, if there's another song with the same title, "Like Dreamers Do (Applejacks song)". Information about the writers (and any unfulfilled intentions they and/or their own band might've had to issue it) is part of the article, no? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Like Dreamers Do (The Beatles song) → Like Dreamers Do –

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Composed in 1957 or 1959?

[edit]

Wikipedia pages in different countries seem to disagree:

EN: "Like Dreamers Do" is a song written by Paul McCartney in 1959
DE: Like Dreamers Do wurde im Jahr 1957 komponiert
IT: Like Dreamers Do è un brano musicale composto da Paul McCartney nel 1957
FR: Écrite par Paul McCartney en 1959
NL: Like Dreamers Do is een lied geschreven door Paul McCartney in 1957

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Like_Dreamers_Do&oldid=1203595798"