Talk:Werewolves of London

Possible Pop Culture Reference

Used in The Color of Money when Vince is playing pool. Major reference, Tom cruise is playing, dancing and singing to the song. It was propably the bigest reference the song has gotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.110.77 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Phoenix Coyotes used "Werewolves of London" as their song after they score a goal at US Airways Center.--BigMac1212 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There must be meaning behind the moaning

I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place for analysis, but is the song literally about werewolves in London? Has Warren Zevon ever spoken about the song's meaning in an interview? I had always assumed it was about yuppies of the American Psycho variety, but the song was released in 1978, long before rich young people existed in Britain. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seven years later, still no use of reliable sources to discuss the meaning of the lyrics -- or the lack thereof, as appears to be the case.[1] Zevon died in 2003, but surely he or others have addressed this. Yes, this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. According to that unreliable link, the song has no meaning, it just emerged from fooling around. "According to Warren Zevon's biography, he, Waddy Wachtel, and Roy Marinell sat down at Roy's house, got stoned and the three of them composed this song with a guitar riff Roy had written years before but never really used. Each of them wrote part of it. It took them somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes to write..." Benefac (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a movie "An American Werewolf in London". Don't know if it is related. Pustelnik (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Internal and External Alliteration?

Any poetry experts wish to comment on the line "Little old lady got mutilated late last night"? This must be one of the most alliterative lines in popular music in the English language

72.177.60.95 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Ken

Yeah, I've often thought that myself. Very poetic. 76.21.0.82 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kid Rock turd fest

Is not a cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
--you're right, it's a rip-off. create a new section.

It's sampling, and I rather like the song. The_Iconoclast (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Similarities

There is striking similarity between the riff in this song and that of Sweet Home Alabama by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Not sure if this has ever been noted before or is obvious to anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.166.156 (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Same goes with the Kid Rock cover too. ~ AlexFili — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.98.21 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted under covers or change category to covers/samples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.180.69 (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lee Ho Fook's should not re-direct to here

Lee Ho Fook was a real restaurant located in London's Soho district.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lee+ho+fook's+london
https://www.google.com/search?q=Lee+Ho+Fook&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u
It was world renown for food, hipness, cost and one of the few Chinese restaurants to earn a Michelin star. Beyond that I don't know anything about the place. I thought I'd visited a Wikip entry for it years ago but now there's nothing.
Please someone who knows how remove the current re-direct of " Lee Ho Fook's " to here, point it at a disambiguation page (if that's what ought to happen) and maybe start a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickerhead (talk Tickerhead (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: And yes, the restaurant is what Zevon is referencing in the song. Tickerhead (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Release date

Are you sure this was released in 1978? http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=4832 states it was released in 1987.--90.220.160.182 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was. However, it's worth mentioning as it looks like it may have been re-released to coincide with the release of The Color of Money and charted again. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Other versions

@TheOldJacobite: you deleted this whole section on 15 December 2016 (see here), with the Edit summary "No indication any of these are notable."

I disagree with this removal:

1. Each of the versions adds to the notability of this article.
2. I see no reason given as to why cover versions have to be notable to remain.
3. Two of the cover versions had reliable sources supplied, which have also been deleted. The article refs needed 'plate asks for additional material supported by reliable sources. The removal ignores this and makes the article weaker than it was.

I ask TheOldJacobite to return this section and provide a rationale for its proposed removal.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I won't restore the section and my reasoning stands. Proof of notability is one of the central principles of Wikipedia, and the references provided in that section did not indicate the notability of those covers, only that they existed. That is insufficient. The article is none the worse for it being gone, since the article is about the song, not about random people who also recorded it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree with your logic. Proof of notability is certainly required if one wanted to start a new article and one should demonstrate that by using verifiable sources. However this is a section of an article on the song, the cover versions are recorded by notable artists &/or for notable works. They add to the notability of this song, per WP:NSONGS#3, where several notable artists have re-recorded it. They are not by "random people who also recorded it."

Two of the references you deleted establish that their cover versions contribute to the wider understanding of this song. I can see an argument for a {{Citation needed}} template at some of the other versions but I don't agree with the whole section being deleted. It should be returned as it makes the article more informative for the typical reader.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove notability, per the policy. Your argument that the covers make the song more notable is backwards; the song was already notable, which is why they covered it. The question is, are those covers notable in and of themselves, which the provided sources do not prove. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Which specific policy are you referring to? WP:N is a notability guideline not a policy. Can you show me where any policy states that cover versions must "in and of themselves" be notable prior to inclusion in an article on a particular song?
2. WP:SONGS#3 states that "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." All of the Other versions were made notable artists/bands: they each have their own WP article. The fact that the article was already notable does not detract from the fact that cover versions by notable artists/bands adds more evidence of the subject's notability. You have removed this evidence and made the article weaker.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's really beside the point whether it's a policy or a guideline, it applies to all articles on WP. It can't simply be ignored.

WP:SONGS3 is irrelevant, because the song was already notable before those cover versions were done -- their existence did not confer notability upon the song. But, those cover versions have to be proven to be notable in and of themselves. The notability of the song in and of itself does not confer notability upon the covers. Likewise, just because the bands themselves are notable does not mean their recordings of this song are notable. Reliable, third-party sources must be provided that prove notability. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree with your interpretation of the notability guidelines and their application. You are unable to point to a policy which supports your belief that all cover versions added to articles about songs must be independently notable. You seem to apply the notability guidelines about articles as a blanket statement for all subsequent material added: to me, this is a misapplication of their intentions. I believe that cover versions by notable artists/groups, which are verifiable by reliable sources, may be added to an article. This helps to expand the article and provides more information for general readers.

WP:SONGS#3 is certainly relevant: as I've indicated previously the cover versions provide corroborating evidence of this song's notability, even if it had already been established. This is especially true where the article has a refs needed 'plate.

In any case, why is the Adam Sandler version not independently notable? The supplied WP:RS reviewed his performance (as part of an album review). It is also described at other sources: 1, 2. Sandler performed it on the Late Show on 15 December 2004 3. Sandler's prior association with Wachtel is explored 4. Clearly his version is independently notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's one of five. What else? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Masha version not notable? The ref which was previously supplied appears to be independent of Masha and the ad agency, Three Olives Vodka. Her version is discussed in the New York Times 5, in Mediapost 6 and Bustle 7.

I don't have time to track any more of the Other versions and will leave this discussion unresolved. I still believe that all five versions should be in the article and that your interpretation of the notability guidelines is incorrect.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This is why I hate Wikipedia. Any idiot like "The Old Jacobite" can think he's in charge. Don't ask his permission to restore it. Just do it! You don't have to prove anything to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.36 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Jim"

The article previously said, "Zevon never revealed who Jim was in the line "You better stay away from him, he'll rip your lungs out, Jim / I'd like to meet his tailor" ...." There is no point in suggesting that there was a real "Jim" being referenced unless we have a source discussing that. I don't think anyone asks Paul Simon to identify Jack who was to slip out the back, Stan who was to make a new plan, Roy who didn't need to be coy, Gus who was to hop on the bus, or Lee who was to drop off the key in "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover"; those names are seemingly all just used for a rhyme, and similarly for "Jim" in "Werewolves of London" which is just a male name that rhymes with "him". Of course, if there are reliable sources discussing Jim's identity or Zevon's refusal to reveal it, we can cite them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Mutton Chops

Mutton Chops were a popular facial hair style at various points in London history, and werewolves are usually depicted with mutton chops as well in various media. 207.112.57.220 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)