Talk:Something (Beatles song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The Below

I'm pretty sure that the below are just trolling vandalisms. I'm not sure I can revert them because they are evidence of wrongdoing by the anon. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant remove them because the FARC candidacy was placed here after these were... I wasn't sure it would be appropriate to simply remove them rather than reverting. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed them. Who cares about reporting it? They troll, we delete their comments. All even. TheImpossibleMan 13:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC) www.lost.eu/4de64

I'm sorry, but the English language should come before a pop song. I find it completely ridiculous that this comes up before the word itself. Wikipedia's priorities are completely retarded. And no, I'm not signing my post.

Huh? Freshacconci 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, anonymous, this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. And yes, I am signing my post and not editing anonymously, but that's just me. John Cardinal 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Album infobox

I know the article already has a Beatles Single infobox, but Something is also the second track on Abbey Road - should we have a box for that as well? -MBlume 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What for? Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should have a 'look this up in Wiktionary' box as well, seeing as something is a common word in the English language as well. comment

comment?

Willie Weeks on bass

I removed (for now) the assertion George would rather have had Willie Weekes play bass on the song than Paul. There were two references for this quote, neither of which when I visited them said anything about wanting WW on bass. I don't object to it being in the article (in fact, I vaguely remember hearing it somewhere before), but it needs a proper reference - a few Beatles FA's have been removed lately for poor referencing and this should not be another one. Wwwhhh 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC) www.lost.eu/4de64

something not being the only beatles song sinatra performed.

I made the change, there is further proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Way_%28Frank_Sinatra_album%29

The quote on the article DID said that something was the only beatles song sinatra performed, but the quote is wrong :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.5.9 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Something single.jpg

Image:Something single.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 Wikipedia: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 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

See I hadn't heard about this Stephen Colbert guy from anywhere other than Wikipedia as I'm not American, but he does exert some power. Did he tell people to specifically vandalise this article?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the pronoun?

Wouldn't a person who searched for "something" be more likely to be looking for the pronoun? Someone the Person (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in an Encyclopedia. A dictionary, maybe, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The image is too small to be sure, but I don't think the single in the picture is correct. "Something" was the A-side, which would mean that the label should be the dark green "un-sliced" apple. "Come Together" would have the "sliced" apple label as the B-side. The single in the picture has a one-word title and is a B-side, which would make it "Revolution" (A-side "Hey Jude"). --Jdd204 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Music Video

I think the music video should be mentioned in this article. It is somewhat a classic video with images of the Beatles with their girlfriends and wives. But its up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.98.194 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations and references

There are currently two {{fact}} templates in the prose and there is no reference to the Cover versions section of the page. If these request are not met in 4 days, I will re-nominate the article the WP:FAR. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on the freakin' main page? Wow, Raul is getting blind. 66.57.44.247 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree - I usually don't complain about Raul's choices, but the Citation needed tags should've dequalified this article for the main page. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The lead CN tags can be removed I would think, the lead doesn't need citing. SGGH speak! 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
All information needs citing, what doesn't need to happen is that the same information doesn't need citing twice. It should EITHER be cited in the lead or in the main body. WP:LEADCITE. In this case we have information in the lead that is not expanded in the main body, and is uncited. That is inappropriate.
I agree with others that this article is problematic and inappropriate to be displayed on the main page as an example of our finest work. We are not even given the recording date of the song, nor the recording engineers. This is a poor article by current Wikipedia standards, and questions need to be asked of the FAC team as to why they allowed it on the main page in this state. A great deal of time had passed since it was granted FAC status - 4 years, and even the Review was over two years ago. It might be worth looking into a safety net whereby a FA that was accepted over 12 months should be subjected to a review before being placed on the main page. In the meantime people should help out by improving the article as much as possible. SilkTork *YES! 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this not a disambiguation

surely there are other things called something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldboy212 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but they're listed at Something (disambiguation). It's the principle of least astonishment - if one topic by a name is by far more well-known, it occupies the prime spot and others are moved off to another page linked prominently at the start. If Andrew Jackson (for example) were featured today, would you complain that *that* page should be a disambiguation? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying the Beatles are more topical than physical reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.91.127 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you asserting that the general meaning of 'something' is more topical? And did you look at the page that you are defending? The difference in labor answers your question. 70.144.90.132 (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR listing

As with others I am concerned at the quality of this article. I went to list it for review and found this: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Something/archive1 which points out that articles on the main page should not be reviewed, and they cannot be reviewed for three days after an appearance on the main page. I suspect this is to prevent an avalanche of Review requests whenever an article appears on the main page. Fair enough. Though it does indicate an even greater need for FA articles which were promoted over 12 months ago to undergo a review process before appearing on the main page. This particular article was promoted over four years ago - Wikipedia has moved on since then, and our criteria now is (correctly) much stiffer. I have raised the issue of setting up such a review process here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#A_review_of_older_FA_before_they_appear_on_the_main_page_re:_Something. SilkTork *YES! 07:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cover versions list

There are over 150 different cover versions of "Something". A mention is already made in the text to the cover versions. I find this list problematic as it is totally unsourced, and there is no clear reason why some artists are selected and not others. Also the embedded list format is discouraged: Wikipedia:Embedded list. I have moved the list here for discussion. I feel it might be best to be restructured into some meaningful format, and appropriately cited before replacing in the article. However, that is openb to discussion. SilkTork *YES! 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It concerns me that the reference for this "second most covered beatles song" is from 2001. A lot can happen musically in 7 years, and who can say if this claim is still correct? Generica (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cover versions

"Something" has been covered by these artists, and others:

Year Artist
1969 Peggy Lee
1969 Joe Cocker
1969 Tony Bennett
1969 George Benson
1970 Perry Como
1970 Engelbert Humperdinck
1970 The Percy Faith Strings
1970 Ray Stevens
1970 Booker T. & The M.G.'s
1970 Isaac Hayes
1970 The Shadows
1970 Shirley Scott
1970 Duane Eddy
1970 Shirley Bassey
1970 King Curtis
1970 Frank Sinatra
1971 Mina
1971 Stu Phillips & The Hollyridge Strings
1971 Andy Williams
1971 Ray Charles
1971 Ella Fitzgerald
1972 Ike and Tina Turner (as "Something in the Way He Moves")
1973 Elvis Presley
1973 James Brown
1974 Johnny Rodriguez
1979 François Glorieux
1980 Frank Sinatra
1981 Sarah Vaughan
1989 The Allen Toussaint Orchestra
1990 Mike Westbrook Band
1990 Ana Gabriel
1991 Los Rolin
1993 Vincent DiCola
1993 Larry Coryell
1993 Giovanni
1995 The Starlite Orchestra
1995 Tanya Tucker
1995 Elías Barreiro
1995 The Gary Tesca Orchestra
1995 L.A. Workshop with New Yorker
1995 Modern Gustin Trio
1995 Screaming Headless Torsos
1997 Elliott Smith 07.31.97 – Knitting Factory – New York
1998 Innovations
1999 Don Angle
1999 Helloween
2000 Jorge Rico
2000 Jim Horn
2000 Gilberto Gil & Milton Nascimento
2001 Bob Dylan
2002 Rodrigo Maffioli
2002 Musiq Soulchild
2002 Paul McCartney & Eric Clapton
2003 Alphaville: "Crazyshow" CD
2005 Les Fradkin: "Something for George" CD
2005 The String Quartet
2006 Salyu
2006 Taylor Hicks: Top 5 night on American Idol
2007 Jim Sturgess in the feature film Across the Universe
2008 Céline Dion (Live on her CBS special That's Just The Woman In Me)
2008 Katharine McPhee (Live on American Idol (season 7))
2008 Paul McCartney (Live At Anfield in 01/06/08 and in Québec city on July 20th of 2008)

Fixing links for beatles-discography

Hello. I was just wondering how I go about fixing some of the broken links. I am Craig Cross, and my Beatles book has been cited in numerous places throughout Wikipedia -- including this page. All of the pages linked to still exist, but have slightly different URLs due to a website redesign. (The actual text quoted hasn't changed, and they do remain part of the same website -- wwww.beatles-discography.com).

Is there any way for me to fix the links? For example:

http://www.beatles-discography.com/s.html should be http://www.beatles-discography.com/song-by-song/?s=something

http://www.beatles-discography.com/1969.html should be http://www.beatles-discography.com/day-by-day/?d=january-1969

and http://www.beatles-discography.com/us-singles.html, http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-albums.html, http://www.beatles-discography.com/us-albums.html, and http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-singles.html should all be http://www.beatles-discography.com/record-by-record/

Londrummer (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. I don't think this page is protected, so it should be possible to change it here. I think changing the existing links to your site should be no problem, but you should check out the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest so you don't run into trouble if you go further. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for the reply. I've waited four days, because i heard that it unlocks four days after you register, but i still can't seem to edit it. I can edit every other part of the page though -- everything apart from the bit which cites the references. it just comes up as a blank box. i was just wondering if you know how i'd go about it fixing those few links. thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londrummer (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"not a major hit"

A #4 hit for a song already released on an album was quite a feat in those days in the UK. I would dispute this tag. --Jd204 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes see a weird anti-George attitude in the UK (I'm thinking of, for example, Tim Riley's Tell Me Why which is often really harsh on George). So I'm guessing there's a smugness in that George's first and only Beatle a-side "only" went to no. 4 in the UK. I may be wrong, but wasn't George always more popular in the US as a solo artist? But I agree: "not a major hit"? It's top 5: that's a solid hit. Freshacconci | Talk 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

currantly i havee no idea what this page is about so hi bye ty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.216.208 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For me, It sounded like "not a major hit for a group like The Beatles". #4 is not a great succcess anyway. --JohnEmerald 14:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was a major hit! It reached the top five and stayed in the charts for three months. I'm rewording. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys do know that this song did not in fact peak at #4 on the charts but actually was #1 for the week of November 29, 1969 in America? This is directly from The Beatles compilation album 1's CD pamplet. Something and For You Blue are the only Beatles songs written by George Harrison to reach #1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_(The_Beatles_album) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.144.66 (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

James Taylor influence?

The phrase

Initially based on the James Taylor song "Something in the Way She Moves"

has been removed pending citation. Radiopathy •talk• 15:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't really need to remove this; it's widely known that the inspiration for Something came from the first line of Taylor's song. You could have just tagged it - or looked it up yourself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

McCartney as contributing writer?

In the writing section of this article, I suggest an addition that could further add to the robustness of this article. The addition would go something like this:

On the 2009 2-dvd set "Good Evening New York City," a live recording of McCartney's performance of the opening concert at CitiField (new Shea stadium) in New York City, in the introduction to "Something," Paul McCartney suggests that he had originally approached Harrison with a new song that he had written on the ukulele. McCartney says that he did not think that Harrison was too impressed but that he liked the song and so would sing it for the audience, and then Paul proceeds to sing the song Something, thus implying that he Paul had written at least the initial riff of the song or some portion of it. <<at this point, I suggest someone could add in clarification on the extent to which this implication is true.>>

Unfortunately, I do not have the clarifying facts to offer, so I am hoping that one of the subject matter experts who have contributed to the rest of this informative article can add insight on this piece. I actually heard this intro from McCartney and came to this source to find out the facts, only to find this item not addressed, so thus the article could be enhanced by addressing this piece.

Thanks in advance for any contributor who can add such clarity, and please redirect me if such comments are not appropriate in this forum.

Leaf52 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should not be changed. McCartney often tells a story before starting to play "Something" on ukelele, but in the live performances I've seen, the story is simply about McCartney playing the song on ukelele for Harrison, and McCartney makes no claim to authoring the song. He probably tells variations of the story, and in the "Good Evening New York City" version perhaps he was telling a story where he was kidding Harrison or something like that. There are various reliable sources, including Many Years from Now (Miles, 1997) where McCartney discusses the song and Harrison's authorship of it. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Composition?

Why does the first sentence of the "Composition" section tell us who the lead vocalist of the song is? What does that have to do with the composition? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sample

Seems like a good idea to replace the sample with a version from the new remasters. Which, I guess, is why probably this will be shot down right away. --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Radiohead cover????????????

Where the hell is this supposed cover? I'm erasing, there's no reference and I can't seem to fine one. --69.125.2.186 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be clarified

It says: "Although it began charting a week after its release on 18 October...". In the infobox it says it was released on Oct 6 (USA) and 31 (UK). Which is correct?--Mycomp (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Harrison nevertheless later said that his favourite cover versions were those by Brown and Robinson." Which Robinson? Smokey Robinson?--Mycomp (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "musical structure"

It has been proposed to remove the section headed “Musical Structure” from this article (and others) following a discussion on All My Loving. Any comments you may wish to make would be appreciated here. --Patthedog (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this section involves contributions from multiple authors, not just me. Here are the instructions from the Wikipedia project on songs, which this project is a part of:

"Articles about songs should contain information on important musical characteristics such as

  • structure (chorus/verse/bridge)
  • key. For traditional tunes if there is a reliable source indicating that there is a settled key or keys include this information.
  • time signature or signatures for tunes which have alternative versions in this respect, particularly those which may be in 3/4 vs 6/8 and those which have cut time variants which are verifiable.
  • Of lesser importance but possibly notable are recording techniques used, if there is a major recording or an original release for non-traditional songs.

It seems to me the Hey Jude Featured Article does this quite well and the attempt here is to begin to build information about the musical characteristics of the song in a similar way.NimbusWeb (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. This issue was recently posted at the dispute resolution noticeboard where I am a mediator. I am uninvolved and hope you will accept my attempt to resolve this. After reading the discussion and relevant guidelines, I believe that the consensus formed here is to not include the extensive discussion on musical theory. Although the guidelines at WP:SONG have been cited, they do not go so far to promote the inclusion of detailed musical theory. As consensus and guidelines seem to support the removal of the content, I will go ahead and do so. I shall do this only once; if it continues to be an issue, I suggest that it is raised at WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. I would, however, advice that this only be pursued if sufficiently new arguments are brought to the table. My summary on the DRN thread can be found here. If you have any issues, please contact me here, or via my talk page. Thank you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Could I please get an opinion from other editors here as to which elements of the now deleted information below are 'too detailed' music theory and which simply comply with the wikipedia songwriting guidelines mentioned above?
  • Given the song is in C major Pollack considers the introduction involves a IV-♭III-V-I chord progression (F-E♭-G-C).
  • The opening melody is notable for the semitone pitch drop from 8 to natural 7th on "Something in the way she moves" over C-B melody line and a I-I7 (C-Cmaj7) chord shift followed by the move to melody note B♭ over a I7 (C7) chord on "attracts."
  • In the bridge section, after modulating to the key of A, Harrison uses a I-iii minor (A-C#m) chord shift on "You're asking me" that is very similar to the move on "When I was younger, so much younger" in Help! (song)"
  • Harrison evokes the Mixolydian mode in his guitar solo emphasizing B♭ as the tonic major 7th harmony shifts to C♭7th.
  • In the bridge the shift from the verse in the key of C major to A major key on "You're asking me will my love grow," is accomplished via a G 'pivot' chord (a device used for example in Penny Lane
  • This G chord is called a 'pivot' because it is a V in the old C major key and a ♭VII in the new A tonic.
  • The A key bridge is exited back to the verse C major key (on "You stick around now it may show, I don't know, I don't know") by another use of a ♭VII (in A) G 'pivot' chord (this time as a V in the new C major tonic). During this ♭VII-I shift from the A key bridge to the C key verse, McCartney's bass plays a D against the G chord creating a Plagal down-a-forth shift.

This information seems very basic to a good analysis of the 'musical structure' of the songNimbusWeb (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

cleanup

just did some straightening up with the phrasing/wording on a few paragraphs - if you check the previous version of the page, it was fairly sloppy, a few run-on sentences, no "genre preface" before the band name (i.e. ...by English rock group The Beatles). just minor stuff that made the article seem a little sophomoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.55.33 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"At the time, many believed..."

The "At the time" sentence that leads in to Harrison's quote is weak and unnecessary.

  • It's weak because it doesn't say specifically who believed, and worse than that, it claims many believed without verifiable evidence to support the claim. Harrison's quote doesn't support the claim because Harrison isn't a good source for what everybody believed or presumed. Specifically, the statement says "many believed," but the evidence (the quote) only supports what Harrison thought people presumed. That's different. Harrison may not have even been referring to the generic "everybody" but rather a more specific group such as "everybody [in my social circle]."
  • The sentence is unnecessary because it doesn't add anything notable that Harrison's quote doesn't already supply.
  • The sentence is also weak because of the repetition of the intro phrase: At the time, many believed that Harrison's inspiration for "Something" was his wife at the time, Pattie Boyd.

Why doesn't the article just present the evidence with less adornment? That would be more accurate, and improve the narrative to boot.

Harrison said, "Everybody presumed I wrote ["Something"] about Patti, but actually when I wrote it I was thinking of Ray Charles."

This is not a big issue because many people probably did believe "Something" was about Pattie, and the paragraph in question is a minor bit in a single article and there are bigger problems to solve. My objections are based on principle and what I think is good, encyclopedic content. I added these comments because I strongly disagree with the recent edit summary about this paragraph, "Citation unneeded as reworded -- Harrison himself says this." — John Cardinal 03:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting because I looked up "Something" and found it hard to believe that Harrison wrote the song for Ray Charles. I thought surely this was a joke on his part. But two sentences later in the referenced article, Harrison clarifies saying "Yeah, but he's a better singer. (Laughs) But that's what I was thinking of. I could hear in my head Ray Charles singing it." I believe adding part of this quote: " I could hear in my head Ray Charles singing it" makes it clear he was not writing a love song about Ray Charles, nor joking about writing one, but rather explaining that as he wrote it, he saw in his mind Ray Charles performing it.208.78.120.35 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Something (song)?

Yes, I know we have the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rule, and this song is arguably more notable than anything else listed on Something (disambiguation). But all the same, 'something' is a common word in the English language. It seems really odd to me to have such a common word as the title for something specific rather than a disambiguation page.

I was going to say 'the only thing sillier would be if the song Yesterday was under that title, rather than Yesterday (song)'... only I just discovered that it is! Despite a clear consensus at Talk:Yesterday#Move request to keep it at the latter title. Um, OK...

What next? Are we going to move Yes (band) to Yes, on the grounds that it's more notable than the common English word? Robofish (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

When a user is searching for the word "Something", how many would be searching for an article discussing its common definition versus The Beatles song? GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

///// Aevar Gudmundsson (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC) I second this, so much I created a user account for the sole purpose of attempting to rectify this apparent nonsense. As per above "this song is arguably more notable than anything else listed on something (disambiguation)" it kind of sums up how badly miscataloged this page is. Not that I have anything against the Beatles or this fine song but the general pronoun use of the word "something" in daily speak when describing random or unknown events is by far a more common occurrence in the world than the existence and distribution of this song. How does one go about changing this category? I am new to this whole thing and not even sure if this is a column that anyone reads, will try other things as well until this gets rectified, if you are reading; thanks for any help you can offer

This space is watched. I recommend you read the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to understand why we think it is okay for it to be this way, even if you disagree. Another item is WP:NOTDICT. I understand a key goal is to find the Wikipedia information the user is looking for as efficiently as possible, which, as I see it, is not helped by directing them to the disambiguation page. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary on the top of this page would be useful. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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: Page moved: there is consensus for moving "Something" to "Something (Beatles song)", but no consensus yet on what to do with "Something" itself, so I will leave that for another move discussion Ground Zero | t 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Something → Something (Beatles song) – Per WP:UCRN- while this may be a well known song, "something" is a commonly used English word, people usually do not think of the song when they hear the word "something." Compare to The Beatles song "Yesterday"- it is listed at "Yesterday (Beatles song)," not "Yesterday"; "Yesterday" is a dab page. Qxukhgiels (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Something → Something (Beatles song)
  • Something (disambiguation) → Something
  • Support the first move moving the song to a disambiguated title, but not the second. "Something" is an important, if abstract, philosophical concept. We have articles for the comparable concepts of nothing and everything, but not for something or anything. What is needed is an article on both "something" and "anything" as concepts. bd2412 T 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is move template mixed up? - the nom seems to be proposing the Beatles song step out of the way of existence and move to Something (Beatles song), which would make sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed template; Support first, which we would have to do anyway because of multiple songs with articles and WP:Naming conventions (music), neutral on second. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am excited about the possibilities here. I have started Draft:Something as a place to put together ideas on the philosophical concept. bd2412 T 03:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: before you said that I already stubbed Something (concept) and added to dab. You're right there should be a philosophy article, by all means blank over the the stub with anything resulting from the Draft:Something draft. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Merged, with the redirect left behind as a breadcrumb for the editors I've messaged. bd2412 T 03:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The most encyclopedic topic for Something is this song. Just because a simple word exists doesn't mean we should move it. Calidum Talk To Me 03:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support making Something be a disambig page linking to Something (Beatles song) and Something (concept), among the many others that it is ambiguous for. No need for a primarytopic claim where a good disambiguator helps everyone. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I was going to get in a huff about this, but you are probably right. I think the philosophical concept is more important historically, but I doubt that many people are searching for that sense of "Something" when they type the word into the search box. bd2412 T 14:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. Sawol (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. No harm in making any song easier to find. Per WP:SONGDAB. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the second change unless we believe a majority of people entering 'Something' in the search box will NOT be satisfied by just reading about the song. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move proposed here, Suggest moving Something (concept) to Something as it sounds like a primary topic (as that concept of "Something" has been around for millennia), Trout slap editors trying to fix "disambiguation" links before the requested move has carried. Patience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    No need for a trout slap; there's nothing wrong with carrying out a routine maintenance task in anticipation of the highly likely need for it. bd2412 T 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If you really think it's likely, speedy close it per WP:SNOW (and since a number of votes are WP:PERNOM I wouldn't necessarily take the result as a given myself). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:PERNOM relates to deletion discussions; this is a move request. In any case, through this process, I am also finding links that are actually intended to point to things other than the Beatles album. bd2412 T 16:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving the song to a disambiguated title. The word is a common English word - the primary topic for this word is not a now-obscure song from a long-ago pop group.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Move the concept of "something" here and move the Beatles song as proposed. Yesssssss, I get to agree with In ictu oculi on this one!! Red Slash 03:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Not the primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 3 September 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.

Requested move 21 December 2014

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: not moved. Number 57 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


– After the dust has settled, it should be clear what the primary topic is. 27,200 views for The Beatles song compared to 1,400 for the concept. No need to inconvenience readers anymore. -- Calidum 07:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom, i.e. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOTDICT (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). —  AjaxSmack  10:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, There was overwhelming support for the move above. The statistics quoted by the nominator shows only how often the article was found, not how it was found and therefore does not prove whether the article is in the right or wrong place. Furthermore this is a "popular culture" article and may not have enduring longtime significance. I note some quickly gathered statistics for views The Beatles article to show how fickle popular culture is.
Month Total views The Beatles
Nov 2014 289971
Nov 2013 368011
Nov 2012 532538
Nov 2011 595538
Nov 2010 899639
Nov 2009 2637650
Nov 2008 1249379
Without making any claims for the statistics there appears to be a considerable downturn in interest in the Beatles, as for one of their songs, disambiguation now is not a bad thing, in the future it will probably be necessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: I would interpret this small data set to show that more people view the article on the weekend (Nov 8-9) than during the week. I think you would need a much larger data set to show "a considerable downturn in interest in the Beatles". GoingBatty (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@GoingBatty:. They are, as I stated, months. I have amended to make this clearer. As such it is a reasonable data set, although full years would be an improvement. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was only discussed two months ago; nothing has changed since then. Does anyone really believe that the primary topic for "something" is a song by a pop group?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would guess that the pop song would be "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Can anyone provide stats of what links readers clicked on when they reached the current Something disambiguation page? GoingBatty (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are figures for page views for November 2014. That is a completed month, so the figures will not change. I do not see that this proves much - most people feel they understand the concept of "something" and are less likely to want to need to look up an article on it than for a specific thing like the song from long ago. Page views do not tell you whether people were looking for what they found; nor do they tell you how people got there.
  • Something has been viewed 6207 times in 201411.
  • Something_(Beatles_song) has been viewed 8943 times in 201411.
  • Something (concept) has been viewed 478 times in 201411.
  • Existential quantification has been viewed 5882 times in 201411.
  • Talk:Something has been viewed 65 times in 201411.
  • Talk:Something (Beatles song) has been viewed 35 times in 201411.
  • Talk:Something (concept) has been viewed 9 times in 201411.
  • Talk:Existential quantification has been viewed 31 times in 201411.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC) amended -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, There was overwhelming support for the move above In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per August 2014; WP:IAR -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment YE GODS, AND THE PRIZE FOR THE MOST AMBIGUOUS TITLE EVER, drum roll please, goes to "Something".
Oppose, What else could I do. There is nothing wrong in saying that this song is associated with the Beatles. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and AjaxSmack. What has changed since the previous RM, is we now have solid evidence that the song is the "Something" most sought by our readers. Those !opposing based purely on "previous discussion" are ignoring the new evidence. Dohn joe (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, essentially for the same reason as the also-ongoing Yesterday move, on the grounds of the long-term significance of the concept of "not nothing". I appreciate the pageview evidence, and generally would support with a ratio like that, but there are some things so basic that they don't get viewed as often as their importance warrants simply because most people already have a general understanding of them. The best example of this is the color pink. The article on the color pink (a level-4 vital article) is the primary topic for pink, and should be, even though Pink (singer) gets over four times as many hits (the last time I checked, it was 83,867 vs. 348,603), and while the ratio there might not be as high as it is here, the sheer number of pageviews are much higher. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, pretty easy call looking at the numbers and remembering we aren't a dictionary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same type of rationale I gave at the RM for Yesterday (Beatles song) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. --IJBall (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- per above. We don't assess the WP:PTOPIC by the number views. Can you please stop this.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Usage, as evidenced by pageviews, is one of the fundamental ways we determine a primary topic. Dohn joe (talk) 00:35, 29 December 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.

Requested move 19 January 2015

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: not moved. Number 57 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Something (Beatles song) → Something (song) – while the song is indeed not the primary topic for the word, it is most certainly the primary topic for the song. Practically all the other songs listed Something#Songs are not very well known, and some are probably not even notable.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: There are various songs with this name, ambiguous disambiguating parentheticals seem generally undesirable, and "Beatles" is not an excessively awkward amount of text to need to add to achieve the dab. Including the name of an artist in the title of an article about their song or album seems generally helpful to form an adequately clear title. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest instead that Something (song) be a redirect to Something (Beatles song). The disambiguation hatnote on the Beatles' song page could point to the #Song section. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails WP:PRECISE fails to distinguish from other songs that are documented on Wikipedia. Also does not follow PRIMARYTOPIC, since PT does not apply to article titles that are not primary titles (ie. "Something") and the PT discussion just failed in December 2014. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISE. If this was the primary topic, it would be at Something. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SONGDAB In ictu oculi (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's very rare for us to allow imprecise parenthetical disambiguators. In other words, if a title has a word or phrase in parentheses at the end to clarify what it is, it had better make crystal clear what exactly that article is about. This works in a few cases, but not this one. Oppose, but I would support Something (song) redirecting here, instead. Red Slash 02:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose this option. If the Beatles song is primary for "Something (song)", then that's a suitable title. If it isn't, the status quo should remain. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2015 (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.

This article needs a rewrite, just to retain GA status (let alone FA)

I can see from above that an editor questioned the quality of the writing in this Featured Article, back in 2012, and that was after several editors had recommended it for delisting in 2006 (when subsequent improvements obviously satisfied their concerns). I still see this article as way, way below the standard one has come to accept as Featured quality. In my experience, it wouldn't have a prayer at GAN; in fact, given that many of the sources are either fan sites or UK2.net-hosted blogs, I'm not even sure it's adequately referenced for a "B" … So many music journalists, musicologists and biographers have written pages and pages, waxing lyrical about "Something", so I can't see why we're relying so heavily on someone called Craig Cross. Compared to the version on 10 February, I've added input from, or otherwise sourced to, the likes of Lewisohn, MacDonald, Ken Womack. (And I've been making some suitably indignant(!) noises along the way: here, here, and here.) So, unless there's any strong objections, I'd like to give the article something close to a complete overhaul.

Aside from the general issues of inadequate sources and poor prose – imo, it's still "a little sophomoric", as the editor termed it in 2012 – the handling of the Anthology 3 solo demo is confusing, and confused, partly through the discussion being spread over the sections Recording & Production and Musical structure, but also because it suggests (incorrectly) that this recording was a group endeavour and an "acoustic version". Some detail on the later demo that Harrison made, with Joe Cocker and Leon Russell, at Apple Studio, would seem appropriate. Then, when discussing the Abbey Road version, there's no mention of Harrison playing his solo live with the orchestral overdubs (or of the various gamakas, glissando, hammering, etc that makes his playing on the track so notable) – in fact, until I added a quote from Womack, there was probably more offered on this at Harrison's biographical article, through the combination of mentions under George Harrison#Songwriting and George Harrison#Guitar work. Nothing here either about key moments such as his altering of the lyrics when performing the song on his 1974 US tour, and the critical scorn he received as a result; Lennon's insistence that Klein issue the song as a single in 1969 (a far cry from Lennon's treatment of Harrison as a songwriter at the start of that year); George Martin's admiration for the track, also … Harrison's criticism of McCartney's bass playing on the song as being "too busy", something that McCartney comments on in the Anthology book. MacDonald is less than complimentary about the bass part as well, and suggests that this was behind Harrison's much-quoted comment from 1974 – something about, he'd "join a band with John Lennon any day" but he'd rather have Willie Weeks on bass than McCartney … All these details are synonymous with "Something", as far as I can tell.

I'll continue to make some changes. As far as the comments I've made here go, this is the current version of the article. (In case anyone comes to this post, sees the text has changed considerably, and wonders what the heck I'm talking about.) But it's perhaps more relevant to look at the 10 Feb version of the article, linked to above, to fully appreciate the problems I've tried to highlight. JG66 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Personnel section

According to Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions, the 2 May 1969 recording of "Something" was as follows "bass (Paul), drums (Ringo), guitar (John), piano (Billy Preston) and guitar via a Leslie speaker (George)." Considering Lewisohn is the only author with access to the original session tapes, how can other sources supersede this? Piriczki (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Because everyone makes mistakes, and Lewisohn did here. I don't have Lewisohn's books, but I notice that Ian MacDonald, while often writing with reverence about Lewisohn's findings, either points out times when Lewisohn was wrong about something in Recording Sessions and subsequently corrected it in his book Chronicles, or just points out that Lewisohn was wrong. The situation with "Something" is an example of the latter. MacDonald credits Lennon with the piano part and writes that Lewisohn was incorrect in Recording Sessions with regard to Lennon and Preston's contributions. Although, MacDonald's only half right himself – he says the piano part was completely removed, which isn't true.
The personnel I've gone for is Everett's, because it's informed and it makes sense. Everett takes it a step further from Lewisohn and MacDonald, and thereby gets things right. For the 2 May basic track, he gives Harrison on Leslied electric rhythm, Lennon on piano, Preston on Hammond, and the rhythm section. And he says that a minute portion of the piano part ended up being retained, over the middle eight. Everett goes through the overdubbing and mixing/reduction process on the song through to 19 August 1969, and I have to say, it makes perfect sense – regarding what was added and when reduction mixes were needed, because of restrictions in multi-tracking.
But anyway, we can't or shouldn't blindly trust one source, any source, if it doesn't check out. (For instance, are you sure Lewisohn didn't correct himself in Chronicles, as he (apparently, per MacDonald) did with other details given in Recording Sessions?) Also, FTR, Mark Hertsgaard was another author granted access to Beatles session tapes, for his 1996 book A Day in the Life. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I should add that both MacDonald and Hertsgaard obviously consulted Lewisohn when writing their books. In his Acknowledgements, MacDonald lists him first among people he thanks "for their help", and elsewhere he refers to (what I take to be) conversations or correspondence with Lewisohn, quite separate from citing him as an author. Hertsgaard mentions personal communications with Lewisohn in his end notes, to support a particular point in the main text. I don't know Everett's book well enough, but again, it's clear that Lewisohn is a (if not the) recognised expert (just not infallible). When I first read MacDonald and Hertsgaard's books in about 1998–99, I soon became aware that there was a Beatles-biographer brotherhood of sorts – with these authors commenting on Lewisohn's and others' findings, almost developing ideas on the page, and clearly, sharing ideas. (And it would seem that Lewisohn supports this.) That's how "the literature" grows and evolves on any subject, of course. So what I mean is, no one's being contrary or ignoring Lewisohn's Recording Sessions; they're fine-tuning his information at times, and apparently, often with his input. JG66 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Blues

The reference provided only cites pop music. The article only references and mentions the rock and pop genres but doesn't mention the blues genre once. --Mistymountain546 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

delete second most covered assertion as if that's a fact...

Discussion closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose deleting the statement that 'something' is second most covered beatles' song, as if that's a fact....appears completely unverifiable, no source that I can find that suggests this is anything other than pure speculation (or that it's even verifiable)...the 'yesterday' article doesn't even claim to be most covered beatles song, just claims to have been covered a ton of times....'something' article only cite for nonsense assertion is some Time magazine article that's behind a pay wall...just say it's been often covered and leave it at that...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. Do your homework – there are no end of sources that support this. I've just added a couple more. JG66 (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

lol you trying to be a comedian with that "source" you picked for the intro...and btw the claim isn't even found in it! and the other two? what does it supposedly say in these books....you realize that how many times a song has been covered is an inherently unverifiable claim anyway, don't you?? what's definition of being 'covered'...and who counts toward the number...the bar band who cuts in album??? it's a nonsense claim masquerading as a fact...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what planet you live on but the online source provided says: "'Something' … eventually became the second-most-covered Beatles song, behind 'Yesterday.'" I can come up with 20 sources – easy – that say the same thing. The number of covers is judged by the number of officially registered recordings with organisations such as BMI and its international equivalents. JG66 (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I find more claims online that Eleanor Rigby is second most covered Beatles songs...not that it matters...as obviously it's unverifiable...why does Wikipedia wantto be in the business of perpetuating claims masquerading as facts??? it's claimed 'yesterday' is most covered song ever...well common sense tells you that it wouldn't even be close to 'amazing grace' let alone 'the star-spangled banner.'.....just leave the claim out...unless specifically say it's a claim. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

which is more intellectually honest if you're in the encyclopedia business: 'Yesterday' is the most covered song of all-time. Or: The Guinness Book World Record has claimed 'Yesterday' is the most covered song of all-time... particularly since the first statement isn't even close to ACTUALLY being true...and since it's inherently pure conjecture masquerading as a fact, and totally unverifiable..this applies to 'something' too..it's clearly distracting, puffery, no? and how is it helpful? just leave it out..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

there's no such list kept by "BMI or its equivalents", hate to break it to you...this site tries to compile a list based on acceptable/mainstream enough covers, apparently...as you can see they have 'Eleanor Rigby' WAY out ahead of 'Something'.. http://secondhandsongs.com/artist/41/originals#nav-entity 68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

explains with cite why shouldn't be stated like a fact: http://rulefortytwo.com/secret-rock-knowledge/chapter-4/what-song-has-been-covered-the-most/ 68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Something (Beatles 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2016

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: Can't read a consensus for the move at this point. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Something (Beatles song) → Something – Readers like I shouldn't need to scroll through a navigation page to find this song. Readers who look up something want something in particular, the song Something. 104.226.4.101 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple entires at the dabpage that are full articles. Is there any evidence that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (ie more common than ever other entry combined)?--67.68.161.51 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Looking at the dab page entries, it's clear that the Beatles song is most sought after. This chart shows that the Beatles song gets about 84% of the views for articles titled "Something", and 17 times the views of the next most popular article titled "Something" (the Lasgo song article). Even if you throw in the indefinite pronoun article, the Beatles song still gets 2/3rds of the pageviews - and that's assuming that everyone who goes to the indefinite pronoun article wants to know about someone, which is obviously not the case. Last, when you add in the dab page, you can see that the dab page gets more than 25% of the pageviews for "Something". That's way too much for a dab page. Our readers are clearly most interested in a particular something when they search for "Something" - and that's the Beatles song. We should make it easier for them to get there. Dohn joe (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too common of a word for a primary topic to be something derivative. When searching Google for "something", this song isn't especially prominent, and it's certainly not the most common version of "something" in daily life, which is IMO important. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
commonality is not usually a primary topic criteria - it's how much it is searched for. Some difference there. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. IMO, both the song and Something (concept) seem more equal in terms of long-term significance. Of course due to systemic bias, pop culture topics will always generate way more traffic here on Wikipedia than philosophy or academic concepts. That does not necessarily mean that it gives carte blanche to always make the pop culture article the primary topic over the philosophy or academic concept. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as per Dohn. --John (User:Jwy/talk) (forgot to sign last week).
  • Oppose, especially per the comments from Zzyzx11 about pop-culture topics routinely getting hit counts disproportionately greater than their long-term significance. Perhaps the Beatles song is the most significant topic named "something", but is it more significant than all of the others? The Beatles aren't amazingly more important than all of the others put together (in particular, the general concept of "something"), and hit counts aren't how we define significance for disambiguation purposes. Let's just keep everything as it is. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The goal of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not to enshrine an article's "significance," but to ease the navigation of Wikipedia users. Indications are that we would serve the users better in the medium term by having the Beatles song as the primary topic. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There have been previous RMs and the results are where the article is now. The concept of something has been around for a couple of millennia, will be around as long as mankind speaks English. As already pointed out twice above, a concept of long-term significance. There isn't any song that meets that long-term significance, and no matter how wonderful this song is, I doubt humankind will be considering it's significance with words like millennia. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Something (Beatles 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Cover version

User talk:JG66: Please see your talk page regarding the recent edit and reversion regarding a cover version of "Something" that became a hit for an artist in another genre. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)]]

As I said in the comment with the edit, I really don't believe the Rodriguez version is notable enough to need its own subsection and an infobox. Instead, it can simply be mentioned in the text under "Other artists". The Bassey and Sinatra covers get plenty of coverage in Beatles biographies, and they were both key in establishing the song's legacy (along with the Beatles original). You'll see Booker T & the MG's had a US hit with the song in 1970; Presley's version was pretty notable, and Harrison's admiration for the Smokey Robinson and James Brown recordings is well-known – but all of those covers are similarly grouped together under "Other artists" without infoboxes. (Besides, I couldn't find anything in the way of commentary on Johnny Rodriguez's version; it's not even mentioned in his AllMusic bio, I notice.)
We've been talking about this issue very recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#RfC: Should Infobox single and Infobox song be merged?. (Please see thread beginning Comment/question, about two-thirds down.) For that reason, I'm pinging Ojorojo, because he seems to have a firm grasp of the criteria. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree, the Rodriguez version does not merit inclusion in a infobox and may not even warrant a mention in "Other versions". - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe the Johnny Rodriguez version needs mentioning in at least the "other versions," as it was a cover version that became a hit single in the country genre. What if anything it added to the song's legacy otherwise is a matter of opinion beyond the scope of this article. Once sourced, I think the Johnny Rodriguez version can be mentioned as being just that ... a cover version that was released and became a top 10 country hit. FWIW, the other versions I believe were not really single releases ... I suppose there were hundreds of artists who recorded "Something" and would take a very long time to list, although I do think the versions expounded on certainly add to the song's legacy and thus justly are in the article. If any commentary is found on the Johnny Rodriguez version, such as a review in Billboard magazine, I'm sure it was probably around the time the song was released and a hit on the chart (spring 1974)); if I come across anything like that, I'll post back on this page and we can discuss further at that time about whether it should be included. Thanks for your input. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)]]
(Responding to ping) It looks like this has been resolved. A song as universally popular as "Something" is bound to have some charting covers. How much prominence (separate sections, infoboxes, etc.) they receive depends on their relative coverage in reliable sources. Rodriguez deserves a mention in the "Other artists" section, but two sentences about charts doesn't justify more. Maybe this subject could use an WP:ESSAY. (BTW, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)" (a GA) is a mess. I'm tempted to be bold and trim it back to one infobox. With the amount of writing about SP, this should be a much better article.) —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I take it to mean advice about infoboxes for songs and namely single releases, such as when they are justified and when maybe we can scale back? I'm not sure about the "Pepper" song, however, as I've not seen that article, although I'm sure there are several Wiki articles about songs where there have been way too many infoboxes. I'd be tempted to say it should be case-by-case basis, although maybe this will be covered in the essay. I'm interested to see what will be covered and the advice given. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)]]
Ojorojo, funny you mention Pepper (song). I was going to highlight it, further to its 1978 B-side (Day in the Life), in the WP Songs discussion … That one really is an example of infobox overkill. I think there'd be a few editors arguing that the Reprise version merits its own 'box, though. Otherwise – definitely. JG66 (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Something (Beatles 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Something (Beatles 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Something (Beatles 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Best song

Article mentions twice that Lennon thought it was the best song on Abbey Road. Anyone object if I jettison one of those?--Daveler16 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead and then in the main body, which is quite usual, as the lead is meant to summarise most of the main points that follow. So, unless I'm missing something, there's no repetition and nothing to jettison. JG66 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Release date

"Something" was hitbound on the 1 October 1969 KHJ "Boss 30" chart,[1] implying that the record must have been released earlier than the claimed 6 October 1969 date, probably sometime in September 1969.107.185.97.165 (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Something vs "My Love"

Added opinion from 2017 book on the Beatles.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As you'll see, I've just reverted. If Sheffield has some genuine praise (or otherwise) for Harrison's song then okay, but his comments are more targeted towards disparaging McCartney's "My Love". I've taken your text over to My Love and added to it as part of a new section on that song's critical reception. JG66 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

George Martin's contribution to the song

I have noticed that there isn't any mention about George Martin's string arrangement except for the Personnel section of the article and it doesn't go into detail about the arrangement. I'm not sure if there is any information out there that is about the string arrangement but it would be nice to have a section talking about the string arrangement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihatehelping (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments about sources - several are not quality enough for FA

What makes abbeyrd.net, soundscapes.info, h2g2.com, jazzdiscography.com, discogs (deprecated), iamthebeatles.com, seconhandsongs.com, superseventies.com, backstreets.com, flavour of new zealand.com, the random geocities page titled "Album: Abbey Road", and Noise 11.com RS? I'm also unsure about some of the publishers. 44.1 Productions appears to have only ever published one book, so I'm unsure about its quality as a publisher. Given that 498 Productions has only ever published books by a single author (Bruce Spizer), who is apparently a tax lawyer, this is also a bit odd. With the sheer number of possibly unreliable sources in this article, this needs addressed. Hog Farm Bacon 06:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure most of those websites can be replaced with better sources. It's long been on my list to give the Cover versions section a major culling, anyway, which will be the end of secondhandsongs.com.
The one site I'd say is fine is Soundscapes, given that it hosts Alan W. Pollack's musicological analysis of the song. Pollack's "Notes on" series is highly respected and he undoubtedly qualifies as a subject-matter expert. The latter provision also covers Bruce Spizer. Apple and Capitol Records ask him about the history of their Beatles releases. To say he's an authority is something of an understatement.
Madinger and Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You (published by 44.1 Productions) is another key text. Among the many sources cited in this article, I know without even needing to check that it's referenced by Peter Doggett, Simon Leng, Robert Rodriguez and a couple of others. It's almost ubiquitous as a source on the Beatles' solo careers because of all the work carried out by Madinger and Easter, which saves other authors from having to do it and is the reason they're so quick to praise/acknowledge the book.
All in all, though, seeing as you've just raised this issue at RS/N and WP:URFA/2020 ... if this article loses its Featured status, it's hardly a disaster. JG66 (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks like when this was made an FA it was about 1/10th of its current size if not smaller, and used only legitimate sources. In the last 12 or so years it seems people have just been adding poorly sourced information across the board. Koncorde (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Er what? I'm not out to defend where the article's got to, necessarily, but when it made FA in 2004 (at least, from following the link from this talk page) it was appallingly sourced, and the FAC process appears to have been cursory at best. Even at the 2006 revisit, self-published sources like Craig Cross dominated – it was still appalling, basically.
The changes since then, by myself and others, have lifted the article out of sight in terms of authoritative sources. If the traffic cops out there want to take away the precious gold star, go ahead. JG66 (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not commenting on the good content added or the people adding well referenced content. I am clearly referring to the poorly sourced content. I am sorry if that is how it came across.
Regarding the FA: I am not aware of any issue with Craig Cross as a source. Self Published sources in and of themselves are (so long as not unduly self serving) very much a bread and butter for a lot of discogrophy info and Cross was a known quantity (in the same way Gaffaweb was /is for Kate Bush) in the more formative years of the internet and wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but "clearly" was not a message I got from that. Craig Cross published a Beatles book via iUniverse and his SP website was used in numerous Beatles articles until a year or two ago. I can't see he's ever been any more worthy as a source than, say, abbeyrd.net, jazzdiscography.com, iamthebeatles.com, backstreets.com – back in 2004 or now. I've flagged a few exceptions above, because they are widely acknowledged as experts in their field, but otherwise, the offending sources are in the process of being replaced. JG66 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for working on this. Don't expect this to lose the bronze star. This notice was for the purpose of trying to get some attention. If y'all can get the worst of them removed, I'll be changing the note at URFA/2020 and remove it from the FAR notice list. I'd much rather see work done on it than it lose status. Hog Farm Bacon 16:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Issues have been addressed. I'll remove it from the FAR notice list and marking as satisfactory at URFA/2020. Hog Farm Bacon 16:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dubious info

In the article, it says that Geoff Emerick claims that George Harrison asked Paul McCartney to simplify his bass playing, but this is just preposterous for Mr. Emerick to say such a thing, as he wasn't even present for the sessions at Olympic Studios, being a staff engineer at Abbey Road Studios, so I think that this passage should be removed. It's also completely inaccurate to say that the commercial impact of "Something" was mitigated by the fact it was released on "Abbey Road" prior to being released as a 45, as it still went to #4 in the UK and #1 in the USA as well as Australia and many other countries. 220.245.23.160 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a source listed for the Emerick mention so there seems to be SOME support for it. I'd want to check that out before removal. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you're wrong on both points. It's quite well known (ie, reported in multiple sources) that Harrison was unhappy with McCartney's busy bass playing, and Emerick probably witnessed some discussion of this during the sessions at EMI in April and May. Maybe Emerick also caught further comments when overdubs were done in July and August; or perhaps he'd heard about a testy exchange from one of the Olympic engineers. You're right that Emerick wasn't present at Olympic so, for the purposes of the article, the sentence beginning "According to EMI engineer Geoff Emerick" could be moved either up to before mention of 5 May session, or to sit somewhere in the next two paragraphs.
The single was very successful, yes, but its commercial impact was affected by its previous inclusion on Abbey Road. This was particularly the case in the UK, where the LP had been available for five weeks before the single was issued, and it was the first time in the UK or US that album tracks were released on a single after the album's release. So it's entirely plausible and, most importantly, reliable sources recognise it as such. JG66 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. :) 220.245.23.160 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ "KHJ's 'Boss 30' Records In Southern California!". 1969-10-01. Retrieved 2018-10-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Something_(Beatles_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1126296887"