Talk:On a Night Like This

Information
Two key pieces of information are missing from this article:

1. How could it be that the writers of this song were able to "give" it to three different artists?

2. Wasn't the recording by Kylie Minogue a controversial issue? Didn't the Anna Vissi camp dispute Minogue's rights to the song? 220.233.224.46 13:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was given to 3 different artists because the songs was written by Steve Torch, Graham Stack, Mark Taylor and Brian Rawling and produced by Graham Stack and Mark Taylor. The rights to the song were owned by them.  I am not sure how they got it to Pandora, but I know that Anna Vissi got it when Sony called in big name producers and composers for her English album.  They were trying to make Anna Vissi the next big thing.  They produced the whole album and wrote alot of songs.  It was released in alot of countries, (even Australia) but didnt make a big impact.  After that I guess the producers gave the song to Kylie too.  I am not sure if it was disputed or not, but I remember an article by a European author that had talked to Minogue over the summer before the release and singing.  She had raved about this new song, and i think played it to him, and he said he had heard it before by singer Anna Vissi.  At that point Minogue was very disappointed.  I dont know what happened after that.  Ultimately Minogue won the fame to the song since she was a bigger artist (known to more people) and sang it at the Olympics. Greekboy 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution?
I have read elsewhere that it is about prostitution. Seeing as the lyrics don't even hint at that, I assume the claim is that Kylie's character in the video is a prostitute. However, I can't see any anything in the video to substantiate that claim. It could be interpreted that her character is an high-class escort, but there is nothing which really shows what / who her character is, other that she has a connection to rich people. Can anyone explain? F W Nietzsche (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes: it's a fantasy sequence and is deliberately vague. I agree—prostitution and escort service—nothing clear either way. Remember, they want people to talk about it (and they have succeeded) --Greenmaven (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrections
There are a lot of grammar mistakes in this article, and it is unclear throughout as to what country the chart informations relate to. Other sentences make no sense at all, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.92.67 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Video Censorship/Controversies
Wasn't the original video, in Australia at least contain Ms. Minogue's bare bottom when she walks by the glass door and as she enters the pool? I somehow remembered that the pant(ies) were CGIed on after some controversy... no online source or discussion regarding this topic was found. --Bob (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed 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: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. It does seem like the developing trend shows a lack of consensus for enforcing WP:NCCAPS in the case of certain prepositions. Additionally, the current discussion does not make it clear that this is not the primary topic for the title. Dekimasu よ! 03:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

On a Night Like This → On a Night like This – Shall we fully enforce WP:NCCAPS and lowercase like? The title treats like as a preposition, not a verb or any other. Most sources capitalize it as Like; this shouldn't prevent this from lowercasing it. Let's compare this situation to I Like It Like That and Talk:Love You like a Love Song. (I'm unsure whether readers have fully read MOS:CT, which doesn't mention requested moves.) George Ho (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm just going to combine and copy and paste my remarks at the discussion referenced above. I put a TLDR down below if that's easier for y'all. The guidelines at the manual of style do not take precedence over common name, and if we are creating our own titles separate from what most reliable sourcing uses than we are doing something against common sense.
 * No one is doubting that there are other pages where limited consensus (and I mean limited, especially in that case where the admin closed against the !votes of the majority of participants) matched what you are proposing. But the Manual of Style, in addition to being a guideline, takes care to note that editor discretion can be used in interpretation. The main purpose of the manual of style in general is to provide a consistent and understandable writing style throughout the encyclopedia, not to push through changes that are not necessarily logical on a case by case basis. A case in which the official name and the vast majority of reliable sources use a specific title and a proposal suggests that we should either invent or conform to a slim minority of coverage is one of those cases in which editor discretion is wise.
 * I think issues like this come up when we try to do things like decide certain guidelines are totally irrelevant or apply a one-size-fits-all method to determining guideline applications. There are cases when following certain guidelines to the letter makes sense, such as with articles with stylized NaMeS LIKe THIs and no clear indication of an official name, where reliable sources like the New York Times will choose a more standard name for readability and style issues. There are other times where a book may have a name in all caps like BOB GOES TO THE STORE and where there is not enough clear reliable sourcing to indicate the correct official capitalization -- in that case turning to the manual of style guidelines is best. But to use specific cases like these and try to expand them to blanket rules without editor discretion that would lead to cases where we would go against every clear indication of both the official name and the name used by the majority of reliable sources would not be a positive attitude.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TLDR - But basically, to sum it up, the current title is overwhelmingly preferred by the policy of using the most common name, and the manual of style specifically encourages editor discretion and discourages using invented names. The MOS is great for our writing style and when the official or common name might be unknown, but to argue that it should be used to take an official name with a specifically chosen title that is used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and websites, as well as is the generally common name is fairly absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then try to propose Nothing Broken but My Heart back to "Nothing Broken But My Heart" there. --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to simply base every discussion off what happens in others, feel free to notify those in those 3 other discussion of this one and we can see what happens.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Authorised artwork uses all sorts of styling, as if styling doesn't matter.  There is no indication that capitalised Like has any significance.  Titling policy doesn't mandate following source styling.  By default, follow the MOS.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But we aren't basing this decision on authorized artwork (in fact I can't find any artwork). We are basing this on the fact that reliable and official sources all call this by a correct name, not a stylized version of an official one. Indeed, we have pretty much every indication that the current title is an official one not a stylized one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars Holiday Special is an official title, but The was dropped per RM. Perhaps the essay WP:official titles may help you rethink this. --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm, you're pointing me to a case where the discussion was about how the common name potentially differed from the official title (and even further, you're talking about a move discussion where it seems you were the only participant). But I don't see how it relates here, given that both the common name and official name are in this case the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. Let's put that example aside and go back on topic. How does capitalization indicate commonality? Words are the same, regardless of capitalization and/or de-capitalization. Is there something contradictory between policy WP:AT and guideline WP:NCCAPS? --George Ho (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you're pointing out something unfortunate -- our title guidelines and policies are somewhat murky. But, what it comes down to can be gleaned from Naming conventions (capitalization), which states that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". If Billboard is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the New York Times or Spin or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, is it really common sense for  us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding credibility, these sources, like Billboard, are not experts of capitalizations. Probably their editors have been too befuddled by liberal standards of English (or have had lack of sufficient English education). --George Ho (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's also just the general notion (which certainly should not be the deciding factor in finding consensus) that On a Night like This as a title just looks weird compared to On a Night Like This. Perhaps this may give some indication as to why "like" and other 3 or more letter words are very often capitalized in composition titles but words like "a", "to", or "and" often aren't. Looking at the top of the actual pages for Nothing Broken but My Heart and Love You like a Love Song almost looks like there was some kind of mixup that lead to a sentence instead of a title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What about A Boy Was Born? People said to capitalize was into Was under the guidelines. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for goodness sake. Just take a look at it. A simple search reveals that no-one else writes it like this but this is something that should be pretty clear without Google weighing in.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [And all along I was assuming you were talking about a Bob Dylan song. Rothorpe (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)]


 * Move to On a Night Like This (Kylie Minogue song), if there were a primary topic it would obviously be On a Night Like This (Bob Dylan song) not this as User:Rothorpe. And move On a Night Like This (disambiguation) to base space. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Yaksar and Gregkaye. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I would have to oppose a move to add (Kylie Minogue song) as well. Page view stats indicate that the current title is a clear primary topic -- the runner up by a long stretch is in fact also Kylie Minogue's On a Night Like This (concert tour), and the Bob Dylan song has about a quarter of that. While my personal views would tell me that Bob Dylan as a whole is certainly more notable than Kylie Minogue, we can't let that logic expand to "all things Bob Dylan does are more notable than what other pop artists do" if the desires of our readers are proving otherwise.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Um.... sometimes, stats can count people who do not read the whole article, including the lede. Probably it includes those wanting to read the Bob Dylan song and/or the country music song. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, User:George Ho, but even if we subtract the Bob Dylan views from this page the results are still clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially the country song? --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, it only gets around half the results of the Bob Dylan Song (which is already only getting around 5% of the Kylie song) so it still works.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.

Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects this page, suggesting that the capitalization of "like" should be removed. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Llywelyn II   15:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on On a Night Like This. 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/20160303172203/http://dancemusic.about.com/od/reviews/fr/KylieUltimate.htm to http://dancemusic.about.com/od/reviews/fr/KylieUltimate.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150406064851/http://www.seansmithceleb.com/kylie-minogue.htm to http://www.seansmithceleb.com/kylie-minogue.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rt100.ro/topul-anului-2000.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) 00:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)