Talk:This Christmas (Donny Hathaway song)

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Requested move

This Christmas (Donnie Hathaway song) → This Christmas (Donny Hathaway song) – The spelling of "Donnie" is incorrect, as seen on the page for the artist, Donny Hathaway. This is a simple fix. 98.92.112.198 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 RefImprove tag

The lede section is pretty well referenced, anybody object to removing the refImprove tag on this article? I'm sure not interested in chasing down a reference for every cover version that gets posted here. Shame to have the ugly banner in the header of a simple little article. 009o9 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" a POV?

If "notable" is eliminated from the section about cover versions, I wonder how much the article will endure reinsertion of trivial list of covers by other artists, even when well known. --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Jess Glynn section

In this edit I removed an infobox and a paragraph of press copy about the Jess Glynn version. I found that level of detail about an Amazon-sponsored Christmas single to be unnecessary, and disproportionate to the notability of the other covers listed in the section above. Upon investigation, I found that the infobox had been added in this edit by User:Greenock125 who has been banned as a sockpuppet. I don't think this page needs to promote this artist.

But I did add the category Jess Glynn Songs, so people interested in Jess Glynn can find it more easily. -- Xueexueg (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "sockpuppet"? Sliv812 (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xueexueg: I have reverted your edit per WP:BRD. There has been dispute over this before, and I'm not going through this again until there's a consensus to remove the infobox for the Glynne version. User:Greenock125 has been blocked as a sockpuppet since making their edit. They were not a sockpuppet at the time, so there was nothing wrong with them adding this to this article. You have implied Greenock125 added this section as some sort of "promotion" for an Amazon-exclusive song or for Jess Glynne. Nobody's here on Wikipedia promoting Amazon products or Glynne—neither need promotion, as you also seem to be very unaware that Jess Glynne has had a great amount of chart success (including multiple UK number-ones) before and without putting a song out on Amazon Music. (I find it amusing for an editor to assume documenting a cover version of a song is some sort of "promotion" for the artist who covered it—this just sounds like a lack of awareness of how Wikipedia handles notable cover versions.) It doesn't matter if the song is exclusive to one platform (or, as you put it, "Amazon-sponsored")—it's the most successful cover version of the song, exceeding the original Donny Hathaway version in terms of chart performance, hence why it has its own section. The user George Ho and I have discussed this version's merits already—mostly over the cover artwork, as recently as October this year in a WP:FFD discussion. I reiterate: Multiple infoboxes are common on articles with multiple notable cover versions. Get consensus to remove it before making the edit again. Thank you. Ss112 10:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, I realized that I shouldn't have re-nominated the image for deletion. I had other choices, but I eventually chose the wrong one. I should've either pinged you earlier before that decision, reinserted just the image, or simply reverted the edits made. I just assumed you would be okay with the changes, but I was wrong. Well, personally, I favor Xueexueg's revision, but I still shouldn't have re-nominated the image that soon. George Ho (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Ss112:, good to learn this has been discussed before. How would an editor have known there has been dispute over this before? I can't find such dispute this talk page or in the page's edit history. According to this article, the Seal and Train versions reached #1 on the Adult Contemporary chart; would inboxes for these versions be equally important and notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xueexueg (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ss112 turned off his pings. You may wanna notify him at his talk page if you wish. Here's the FFD discussion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 7#File:Jess Glynne - This Christmas.png. George Ho (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, @George Ho:, and now I see why ss112 doesn't want to have this conversation again — and I don't really need to ping them. And I see that you and I agree. I'm usually a more conscientious name-speller BTW, sorry to Ms. Glynne. Xueexueg (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, you may start an RFC discussion on the Jess Glynne version. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos

YouTube has two videos, both posted by Rhino Entertainment: one "drawn by famed cartoonist Lonnie Milsap" and one with lyrics. How do we know these are "unauthorized"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "unauthorized". Their channel declares itself official when going to its "About" page. Furthermore, if browsing YouTube on desktop or laptop, you may see a music note indicating "official artist channel" if applicable. Seems that both videos are legit. --George Ho (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I guess Rhino must have bought the rights from Atlantic along the way, although I guess both videos must be much more recent than 1970. I was wondering if the lyric one is to be preferred over the cartoon one. The unauthorised one that you removed is quite funny! lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, the animated music video was actually created and posted by Rhino one year ago for the song's 50th anniversary. And Rhino Records has been reissuing/releasing the Atlantic Records catalog since at least the mid 1990s. Sliv812 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Sliv812. Perhaps one could go in External links? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]