Talk:Motorhead (song)

Hawkwind
I've tried my best to keep the Hawkwind in one place as was suggested, but I notice that "Kings of Speed" has now had the Motorhead/Valium ten addded, which has Motorhead as the A-side for the single. This naming convention is driving me nuts, that should have it's own page "Motorhead (1981 single)", the Motorhead (song) article needs changing into just that and made an overview article, without predudic to either band's releases, the other two need moving to the relevant Motorhead (year single) otherwise it'll be falling over itself, the Hawkwind linkages do so already.--Alf melmac 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your approach that pages should be based on product, I too had that opinion until kinboyk forced me to merge the 1972 and 1982 "Silver Machine" recordings into one article and made me see that articles based around a song covering all aspects of it (and its different releases) is far more comprehensive and informative for the reader than multiple articles based around the product. It's a different way of thinking, but when you get it you'll understand - try thinking about it from the general reader's point of view, rather than as a cataloguer. The 1975 b-side and 1981 a-side of Hawkwind's "Motorhead" are the same recording, but with different overdubs. Splitting the page into two will only devalue the overall article, anyone interested in the subject would have to read 2 pages instead of 1, and it's not as if they're weighty. Drwhawkfan 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I know and respect Kingboyk opinion (I welcomed him in September 2005 iirc), this treatment is not on a par with other topics on the encylopedia. I understand his wish for fuller, more inclusive articles, however, all the feedback from users who have looked up singles have stated they don't want to have to hunt. I am firm in my conviction that it should follow the books -> film/play/radio broadcast patterns that allow for flexibility which would allow for us a full page about the song and noting all its releases and the data relevant to any important bands' discography on singles pages where its justified, when comparing that to the amount of tv show episodes, cast, guest stars etc etc pages there are, it really appears we are short changing singles and songs. What is a single, it's not just the A-side, when I ask the question "what would have happened if the band had have titled the single something unrelated to the title of the song" (and sometimes they do), the answer is always, 'it wouldn't be a naming issue then'. Believe me I am looking at it more from the readers' point of view than the encylopedists.--Alf melmac 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the books/films/etc parallel, quickly off the top of my head, a few examples I could think of and just looked up were Apocalypse Now/Apocalypse Now and Blade Runner/Blade Runner, different versions and different releases all dealt with in the same article. I can accept Psycho (1960 film) and Psycho (1998 film) as different articles as they are different films, even if the latter is a remake (I wouldn't suggest merging Hawkwind's "Motorhead" article with Motörhead's "Motorhead" article). But the 1975 b-side and 1981 a-side of Hawkwind's "Motorhead" are the same recording, merely with different overdubs. Drwhawkfan 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's some of what I have seen in my bodding about - The Lord of the Rings (1955 radio series), The Lord of the Rings (1979 radio series), The Lord of the Rings (1981 radio series) - ok so The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film) is understandable but they are the same story ("it's the same song...."), but that also has The Lord of the Rings (soundtrack), The Lord of the Rings (symphony) and Music of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. For more pages relating to this one book - see The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation). Other less involved are Rear Window (1998 film) and Rear Window, however Dracula is amazing - it has Dracula in popular culture as well as Dracula (1931 film), Dracula (Spanish-language version), Dracula (1958 film), Dracula (1968), Dracula (1973), Dracula (1979 film), Dracula (2002), and Dracula (2006), not including the Nosferatus, Brides, Lusts for... film pages, which like the articles I've linked there, are all adaptations of the one story. I have a few more examples, if you'd like...--Alf melmac 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Triplicate articles?
Why are there three different pages for this same song? I see this one, Motorhead (single), and Motorhead (live). I see some discussion above that argue for two pages ... but three seems excessive to me. (Note that I'm just passing through because someone categorized this page under "Songs" and I categorize pages out of "Songs"; I'm not an expert on Motorhead.) Nerwen 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional note: I'm in favor of one article per song, by the way. In my time spent categorizing all kinds of songs out of Songs and into more specific categories, I find it much more helpful to have all the info about a particular song on one page. Just put the most sought-after info at the top.
 * I understand the argument for having two separate pages for movies vs. live productions (Sound of Music (musical, film) was an example I passed through recently). To my mind, the complexities of big productions are more analogous to albums than to individual songs.
 * Just some thoughts that I hope you find helpful. Nerwen 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is the other one to include too, the Hawkwind version. I ended doing this because after some discussion, no progress to a viable solution to having three full single 'articles' included on the song page, so as there are three main releases which include the man who wrote it, those should be included in some detail. The Hawkwind editors didn't want the Motorhead/Valium Ten version merged or made into a seperate article, as, if I understand them correctly, they see it as a reprocessed track from the Kings of Speed article, oh darn it then, that's four that need be in the article - I may have moved the version of the song page I was working on too early. The editor who chose to move the two Motorhead singles to new names elsewhere argues that a recording of a song by Ozzy and a single which has it as its A-side by Motorhead should be merged, so go figure... I had intended to pair down the info on the song page a little more and get the rythym of the opening down in music form so it is about the song. In my opinion, the WikiProject Songs have led us astray from being flexible to meet the needs of readers, singles pages are needed for those bands whose are important enough for their discography to be notable by default, popular song pages cannot hold and meet the needs of readers navigating the discographies of a particular artist - where in the few instances this causes a problem by having overly popular songs, I think one solution is to have a page about the songs and any original composer/band releases to have some explaination, but also allow singles pages to exist to capture all the data on those - what happened on the way to studio to record the song and the fact that the studio owner's dog can be heard on one the lead guitar track at 2.57 would be better out of the song article and fine for the single article. Horses for courses though, I wanted some feedback on this way of doing it which you have very kindly provided.--Alf melmac 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll make a side note, if the bands had decided to name the singles "The Blue Single" and "Whhhhooooooaaarrgh", would there be an issue that both singles have the A-side cover the same song?--Alf melmac 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another solution would be to house singles that 'support' an album on the album page, that, for discography readers would be a neat move, and less likely to FU the navigation through that artist's catalogue, please feel free to get creative with the solutions here....--Alf melmac 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... tricky. I guess if you have a song that was written for one band, but then moved to another band, and then ten other performers cover it (other bands, it turns into a popular song from a tv show or movie, it becomes a theme song for something else entirely, etc. etc.), and all ten of those versions are highly notable with gigantic pages of info available ... it would make sense to have separate pages for everything.
 * However, if a casual browser such as myself were to come through wanting to know "what's this song?", and if the info is in ten different pages that don't reference each other very well (because they all have different groups of editors), well, I'm going to miss out on important info when I try to do something important like attempt to classify it.
 * In which case, I think that there should be a root page somewhere (say, "Motorhead (song)") that acts as a disambiguation page for all the rest. As in, you'd have a paragraph or two at the top that briefly sums up the key points (this song-genre song was written by whom in what year for which band, and then ...etc.). Then the rest of the page is a list with links to the notable stuff, and just straight-text list for everything else that isn't notable. ("This song was also covered by Joe Blow Nobody in 1996, and Jane Obscurity in 2001...")
 * In your sidenote about notable singles with multiple notable songs on them - I guess I would treat each single as if it were an album. Then, on the page for the song itself, "this song appeared on Blue (single) by band in year, and also on WWhoooarrghhh (single) by other-band in other-year."
 * Nerwen 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HawkwindMotorhead.jpg
Image:HawkwindMotorhead.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HawkwindKingsOfSpeed.jpg
The image Image:HawkwindKingsOfSpeed.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --11:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

merge
Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your opinions on the matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Urchin
What is pearls before swine? Is this a known thing? How does one sign up for whatever this means, anyway? How about Judas, Ga Ga? Is it all about some made up monkey in a cage? What God Wants 75.224.4.58 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Motorhead (song). 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://web.archive.org/web/20061019221238/http://3lib.ukonline.co.uk/hawkwind/timeline.html to http://3lib.ukonline.co.uk/hawkwind/timeline.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66kbv9vjp?url=http://www.starfarer.net/clippings15.html to http://www.starfarer.net/clippings15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Motorhead (song). 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://web.archive.org/web/20070429170552/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/tabs/m/motorhead/motorhead_crd.htm to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/tabs/m/motorhead/motorhead_crd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Motorhead (Motörhead song) into Motorhead (song)
Different band, but same song. There's already a section on the Motörhead version here, and I'm not sure it warrants a separate article. It makes no sense to have an article about both the Hawkwind and Motörhead versions, and another about just the Motörhead version. Adam9007 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure why it took so long for someone to propose this merge. A second article is completely redundant. 19:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support I to this day still don't know why this change hadn't been proposed beforehand. JJPMaster (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)