Talk:You Keep Me Hangin' On

Untitled
Placing the other two infoboxes here, because, as of current, there's no room in the article:

--FuriousFreddy 14:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:You Keep Me Hangin On Kim.jpg
Image:You Keep Me Hangin On Kim.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 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 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Supremes You keep me hangin on.jpg
Image:Supremes You keep me hangin on.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing
The information on this page inexplicably bounces between the different versions. Note that the summary at the top of the article is about a Supremes (60s) song, but at the bottom of the page it's indicated that single was preceded as a chart-topper by a U2 (80s) song. The cluster of infoboxes on the right, considering how many there are, drastically loses usefulness. I think this article desperately needs huge changes. Bobbygalaxy (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cover versions
Please, before adding non-notable covers read WP:SONGCOVER to check if the version passes this. So many don't!.--Egghead06 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely the 2005 version by Madness_(band) deserves a mention? They're a pretty big band. Spacepostman (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Does their version satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:SONGCOVER?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering her recent passing, the article should have a section on the cover by Aretha Franklin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretha_Franklin_Sings_the_Great_Diva_Classics Jazzilady (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see how Aretha's version is important to the topic. Can you elucidate? Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"one of only nine songs"
"The single reached number one by two different musical acts in America. It is one of only nine songs to achieve this feat. " The source doesn't seem to say this. Page 667 (discussing the Kim Wilde version) states, "In the first 31 years of the rock era, three songs climbed to number one in two versions by different artists....In the 32nd year of the rock era, three more songs went to number one for the second time..." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to lose my patience with your nonsense. Once again here are all of the pages used in my ref: pgs 101, 115, 199, 122, 213, 268, 283, 299, 315, 364, 390, 399, 646, 662, 667, 799, 808, 913. Instead of wasting my time and patience with sheer utter nonsense, please go do some actual work like adding content or finding sources, instead of making a huge fuss over one sentence that is accurate and referenced.  Caden  cool  01:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA.
 * I'll take a look when I have a chance. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'm done with you.  Caden  cool  04:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, the pages can be combined to reach the new conclusion stated but do not explicitly state it. Instead, I would like to suggest that we state it was the first song to have three different artist's versions reach to top 10 in the Hot 100 and that five artists' versions have charted in the Hot 100, citing page 667 which directly states as much. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've missed the entire point of this whole thing. I gave you 18 pages that support my ref yet you have chosen to focus on a single page? You did not even bother to read the 17 other pages that support my ref. You chose not to do your job and I will not do your job for you. Furthermore your suggestion is ridiculous. Please stop wasting my time.  Caden  cool  23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what I am saying. I do not see a source that says this is one of nine songs that charted twice. I see 18 sources that, when added together may mean this. This is synthesis.
 * As a separate issue, I have suggested adding material that comes from one page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I understand perfectly well what you're doing and I am fed up with your distruptive nonsense. Here is your problem, you never bothered to pick up a copy of the book and you never bothered to read the other 17 pages. Your allegations of original research is ridiculous. You've wasted so much of my time making a fuss over one sentence. A sentence that is accurate and sourced. It's not my problem that you have chosen to be lazy. That is your problem. I think it is best that you stop playing games here and go do some actual work (like building content or finding sources) instead.  Caden  cool  19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please limit your comments here to discussing edits, not editors. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia.
 * I have full electronic access to the book. None of the pages you've cited state that "You Keep Me Hangin' On" is one of nine songs to reach number one by two different musical acts in America. Of the pages mentioned, 213 and 667 are the only ones that mention "You Keep Me Hangin' On", the subject of this article.
 * If you feel one of the pages specifically states this, please quote it here, with a page number. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No PA's were made. Only the truth was stated. Please read . Furthermore, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Try remembering that.  Caden  cool  21:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Escalating NPA warnings apply. If you feel you have not made attacks, I invite you to raise our statements to the contrary at whatever venue you would like.
 * Do you have the page that specifically makes the claim you have added? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not and am not doing your job for you. If you have a problem you are free to take it to any board you wish. I personally am at the end of my rope with you. A third opinion on this matter is an idea or other opinions from other editors.  Caden  cool  21:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You added material. Your job is to WP:PROVEIT. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I look like a newbie to you? Spare me your never ending distruptive wiki links. I know how things work around here. Furthermore, did I not tell you that if you had a problem to take it to any board of your choice? Either do it or stop with this nonsense of yours.  Caden  cool  22:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Confirmation that I had requested a WP:3O was already there when you added this demand. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that until after I replied to your never ending disruption in this thread here. Furthermore the third opinion was my idea, not yours.  Caden  cool  23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion
At issue is this piece:
 * "You Keep Me Hangin' On" ... number one by two different musical acts in America. It is one of only nine songs to achieve this feat.

Of the pages listed, only pages 213 and 667 mention "You Keep Me Hangin' On", the topic of this article. None of the pages listed make the specific claim that I can find. The editor adding the claim refuses to explain how any of the sources verifies the claim. Various claims of this type are floated in film/TV/movie/song articles, often with no source. Some of the claims are true. Some were true. Some are almost true. Others are simply incorrect. I don't know where this one falls on that spectrum. I do know that it does not cite a reliable source. Instead, it "combine(s) different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." WP:SYN - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. If Caden cannot provide a source to directly support the claim he is attempting to add, then it should not be added. Meatsgains (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I provided 18 pages so I highly doubt it can be seen as original research. The readers will agree with me on this. I stand by my one sentence as accurate, truthful, and sourced by a reliable publication. It is not original research. 9 songs were number one twice by different artists. The book I used proves it. The pages I used shows this. Anyway thanks for your opinion.  Caden  cool  23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is that it is synthesis. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. I want more opinions.  Caden  cool  23:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find them. At the moment, the consensus is to leave the material out. You might also try looking for a reliable source that does support the statement or an updated version of it (the source you are trying to use is 12 years old). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to me, along with any other editors that want to offer their opinion, to provide a list of page numbers from the book and provide the specific quotes supporting the information you are wanting to add to the page. It will save us all time and we'll reach consensus quicker. Feel free to add quotes to the list below. Meatsgains (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was a case of original research. The guideline allows for simple number comparisons – see WP:CALC – but when a bunch of hunting, sorting and analysis is involved then it's not simple anymore. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Binkersternet your post is a little late. Thank you Meatsgains for your feedback. I no longer have the patience to deal with this. I've altered my edit and my ref in order to have this over with. Personally I found the whole thing total bullshit. One sentence was turned in to an over blown mess by one single editor? She kicked up a fuss over one single sentence that was and is accurate. Ok. Whatever.  Caden  cool  05:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a quote from a source with the page number for your amended claim of it being "one of six"? I did a cursory search in the source provided in the article and didn't find anything, but I wasn't thorough. However, changing it is pointless if it's still unverifiable and/or is the result of original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The text lists the 6 songs on page 667.  Caden  cool  06:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Source
The Billboard Book of Number One Hits: The Inside Story Behind Every Number One Single on Billboard's Hot 100 from 1955 to the Present - Pages: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatsgains (talk • contribs) 22:29, December 16, 2015‎
 * 101-
 * 115-
 * 199-
 * 122-
 * 213-
 * 268-
 * 283-
 * 299-
 * 315-
 * 364-
 * 390-
 * 399-
 * 646-
 * 662-
 * 667-
 * 799-
 * 808-
 * 913-
 * If various editors add comments to a shared list, we'll have no way to tell who said what. In any case, only two of the pages listed mention "You Keep Me Hangin' On", the subject of this article, 213 and 667. The remaining pages say nothing about the song; they are not "directly related to the topic of the article" (WP:NOR). None of the pages "directly support the material being presented".
 * Page 213 discusses the Supremes' version. It does not mention other versions charting or anything else relevant to this particular claim.
 * Page 667 (on the Kim Wilde cover) does mention the idea: "In the first 31 years of the rock era, three songs climbed to number one in two versions by different artists.... In the 32nd year of the rock era, three more songs went to number one for the second time..." The texts lists the six songs, but does not say anything about nine songs or anything else that happened after Wilde's version.
 * The other pages are examples of other songs that charted twice. These 18 examples (9 songs by 2 artists each) are being cited to "combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". WP:SYN
 * (Additionally, it is quite likely that there are examples not found in the 2003 source. "Mad World" and "Landslide" come to mind as possibilities.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed it in order to put an end to this. It now reads: "In the first 32 years of the Billboard Hot 100 rock era, “You Keep Me Hangin' On” became one of only six songs to achieve this feat." You happy with that or not?  Caden  cool  06:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The other pages are examples of other songs that charted twice. These 18 examples (9 songs by 2 artists each) are being cited to "combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". WP:SYN
 * (Additionally, it is quite likely that there are examples not found in the 2003 source. "Mad World" and "Landslide" come to mind as possibilities.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed it in order to put an end to this. It now reads: "In the first 32 years of the Billboard Hot 100 rock era, “You Keep Me Hangin' On” became one of only six songs to achieve this feat." You happy with that or not?  Caden  cool  06:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (Additionally, it is quite likely that there are examples not found in the 2003 source. "Mad World" and "Landslide" come to mind as possibilities.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed it in order to put an end to this. It now reads: "In the first 32 years of the Billboard Hot 100 rock era, “You Keep Me Hangin' On” became one of only six songs to achieve this feat." You happy with that or not?  Caden  cool  06:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

First proto-disco song
You keep me hangin' on is considered the first proto-disco song. So i added proto-disco in this page. LSM1204 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Source? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Supremes version
The Supremes version is an example of psychedelic soul. The Mo-Ja&#39;al (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in You Keep Me Hangin' On
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of You Keep Me Hangin' On's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "officialcharts.com": From It's Alright (East 17 song): (Retrieved 12 August 2008) From Little Mix:  From You Can't Hurry Love:  From List of The X Factor finalists (British series 8):  From Blake Lewis: http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/blake%20lewis/ 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Another song called "You Keep Me Hangin' On"
There's another song called "You Keep Me Hangin' On" by J.J. Cale, from his 1982 album "Grasshopper". 83.49.113.94 (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)