Talk:One (Harry Nilsson song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One (Harry Nilsson 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

On 28 December 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to One (Three Dog Night song). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Rendition

This article neglects the significance of the Three Dog Night rendition. The song would have remained unknown to this day if TDN had not covered it. Jrgilb (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are Three Dog Night? 92.40.253.173 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

One (Harry Nilsson song) → One (Three Dog Night song) – The Three Dog Night version is far more well known and notable. Please see "Here Comes the Night (Them song)" for another example of not using the original artist in favor of the more well known version. Hoops gza (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See Fever (Little Willie John song) for a contra and sustained view. And... if the song is re-recorded again and do we have to move again because somebody (more recently, to boot) is more famous. Let's leave these songs well alone. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. And... if the song is re-recorded again and do we have to move again because somebody (more recently, to boot) is more famous -- "Famous" has nothing to do with notability. But yes, such a potential future situation may indeed necessitate a move. --195.14.198.57 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't agree with the diambiguating by most popular as a general rule. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; we title articles so that readers can tell they're at the right article. The proposed title achieves that purpose better than the current one. Powers ^T 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The original performer is both an objective fact and not subject to change. "Best known" and "most popular" are neither. As long as there are redirects for later notable performers, and these versions are mentioned in the lead, disambiguating by original performer is a sensible system.--ShelfSkewed Talk 07:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here Comes the Night (Them song) is not a good example since the article is at that title not because the version by Them is more popular, but because at the time it was moved (by me) from an earlier disambiguation (by composer) the article mistakenly claimed that Them were the original performers. In that case, I would support moving the article to Here Comes the Night (Lulu song), but I won't do it myself, as that would just be pointy under the circumstances.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's not a Three Dog Night song. It's a Harry Nilsson song covered by Three Dog Nights. Trinitresque (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which makes it also a Three Dog Night song. What's the difference? What do you see as the purpose of the disambiguator? And how does "Harry Nilsson" accomplish that better than "Three Dog Night"? Powers ^T 16:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Precisely. There is no burning reason to move the article and disturb the links, so why bother? --Richhoncho (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell do you mean "Precisely"? That's not even remotely what I said. Powers ^T 21:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "What's the difference?" to which I replied accordingly and in agreement, there is no need to move. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking Trinitresque what his/her perceived difference was between Harry Nilsson premiering the song and Thee Dog Night covering it. I know what my difference is -- that the Three Dog Night recording is far more well known and far more likely to be the one that a reader is familiar with. In no way was my question intended to suggest that the distinction is immaterial. Powers ^T 14:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a question one could ask is: "Would the song be notable (per WikiPedia guidelines) if only sung by Harry Nilsson?" It doesn't appear to be, so a logical diambiguator would not be by who sang the "most popular" version but by who sang the version that made the song notable. Ok, that's Three Dog Night in either case here, but if a subsequent version is recorded and becomes more popular, a move would not be necessary. This way, song articles such as It's My Life (Talk Talk song) (a notable song before No Doubt's more popular cover) and Heart and Soul (Huey Lewis and the News song) (originally recorded by Exile but not notable) are both properly disambiguated as they stand. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Star, moving songs around, using "primarytopic" as a reason is time consuming, pointless and disruptive because "popular" songs are, by definition, transient. Let's build the encyclopedia instead of worrying about which version "is far more well known and notable." Such things are rarely quantifiable and not worth the wasted time on these RMs.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star's standard might be usefully applied in the present case, and the other cases Star mentions, but it becomes problematic when applied to other cases. The questions that arise are: How notable is notable? and, Notable where? Consider Here Comes the Night (Them song), mentioned above. The original version by Lulu actually did chart, according to the article, at #50 in the UK. So did she make the song notable? Or did it only become notable when Them had an even bigger hit with it? And there are several cases of songs from the mid-20th century that became simultaneous (or nearly simultaneous) hits by different performers in the UK and the U.S. Which version made the song notable?--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted and I definitely wouldn't suggest this as the rule, in particular for older songs circa pre-1960; Young Love (1956 song) for example, is probably one best to leave as is. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a misconception here. Are we talking about songs or recordings? My take is, and has always been, we are talking about songs. In which case how a song became notable is not necessarily the same way as it needs to be disambiguated. Irrespective of who and how famous a particular recording of this song is, there is one overriding and incontrovertible truth about this song - If Nillson hadn't written it there would have been no versions of the song. Another example of this type of discussion and result can be found at Blue (Bill Mack song).--Richhoncho (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

New media use: Cadillac Escalade

I just heard this song as the soundtrack of a TV AD For the Cadillac Escalade but I don't know the artist playing this version. Luiscarlosrubino (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also covered by Filter (band)

"One" covered by Filter appears on "The X-Files: The Album" (1998). 2A02:560:5978:4D00:B889:DFAF:B64:28FD (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]