Talk:Try a Little Tenderness

Other recordings: notability
I argue that a recording of a song with a wiki-article by an artist with a wiki-article qualifies as something notable, 2 positives as it were. Furthermore I strongly argue that having a list of recordings of a song that has its own wiki-article in the wiki-article is a good thing, showing the breadth (or not) of artists who have recorded that song, showing the time periods of popularity of the song and giving an idea of the evolution of the interpretation of the song (or not) Brunswicknic (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've left in the ones which pass WP:SONGCOVER.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In your revert of my revert of my revert (isn't editing fun), you asked how does it fit WP:SONGCOVER. I draw your attention to:

WikiProject Songs:

Cover versions/multiple renditions

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song, the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

Which leads to:

WP:NSONGS

Songs

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[4] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

So at WP:NSONGS it says that notability of a song can by judged the independent factor of "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups", therefore each of the cover versions by artists who are notable (and I believe we can agree that this means "has a wiki-article", if the artists weren't notable they wouldn't) is a factor of notability of the song. Therefore, versions by several notable artist is itself notable, and can be used to create a stand alone article. The statement "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS" at WP:SONGCOVER leads to WP:NSONGS. Therefore a list of several notable artist rendering the same work is a factor in notability. So, why can't we have a list of cover versions by notable artists, which in it itself is listed as fulfilling the requirements of notability?

In other words: you are using the criteria for a stand-alone article to argue that cover versions are only notable if they can stand alone for an article. Yet one of the criteria of notability of a song is that it has been covered by several notable artists. Given that one of the criteria of notability for a song is versions by notable bands, why do you think that a legalistic interpretation of wiki-rules means no list of versions by notable artists in an article?

I also repeat that apart from meeting the strict legalistic interpretation of a number of wiki laws, that including cover versions show the history and evolution of a song, from initial recordings to very notable recordings to other notable recording to another very notable recording and so on. These are not fossils, they are articles on music that change with time.

Thanks Brunswicknic (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I also note that many users have built up and edited hundred of lists of "cover versions/other recording/&c." These represent the desire and consensus of the wiki community. It takes many to build them, and one editor deciding to blank them is impolite.


 * Your additions of covers simply cannot pass NSONGS as none of them are accompanied by reliable sources on the rendition. Simple.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Returning to the topic, I stand by what I argue the wiki guidelines state, and what numerous members of the wikipedia community endeavour to add to further extend our understanding of a song's significance, history and changability. When it comes to wiki policies, it seems to me that this is "I argue this""I argue that", with random songs suffering because of exclusionists happy deleting. Editing wikipedia is at times a battle of who has the most energy. Rational and prolonged discussion seems to have no role to play with exclusionists. "I say you didn't adhere to 'x' therefore I will delete many editors work because I want to." At the moment I don't have the energy to fight these selfish individuals. At the moment I do not feel like interacting with people who care less about the topic than their own inflated sense of power as wiki editors. At the moment the US-centred, computer-geek-centred nature of wiki-editing is off-putting to meBrunswicknic (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove
The song appears in an instrumental version as part of the opening credits of the 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove. I saw someone had misattributed it to the Otis Redding version, which would be impossible as Mr. Redding recorded his version in 1966 (according to this article). The point I'd like to raise, is that the Dr. Strangelove instrumental does not belong in § Otis Redding version. Is the Dr. Strangelove instrumental noteworthy enough to be included in this article, where should it be written—the opening paragraph didn't seem right—and who recorded/performed the version heard in the film? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)