Misplaced Pages

Talk:Yesterday (song): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:39, 5 January 2015 editDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers476,173 edits →Requested move 21 December 2014← Previous edit Revision as of 02:39, 5 January 2015 edit undoDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers476,173 edits →Requested move 21 December 2014: oops, dupsNext edit →
Line 746: Line 746:
: {{quotation|'''(1) Keep this article at "]";<br/>(2) Move the disambiguation page to "]"; and<br/>(3) Make "]" a ''redirect'' to "]".'''}} : {{quotation|'''(1) Keep this article at "]";<br/>(2) Move the disambiguation page to "]"; and<br/>(3) Make "]" a ''redirect'' to "]".'''}}
While I acknowledge that this arrangement is not the standard procedure on Misplaced Pages, in this exceptional case I submit that it's the best solution, as it serves our readers well by getting most of them directly to the article they're seeking, while also eliminating potentially-confusing ambiguity in the article titles.—&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC) While I acknowledge that this arrangement is not the standard procedure on Misplaced Pages, in this exceptional case I submit that it's the best solution, as it serves our readers well by getting most of them directly to the article they're seeking, while also eliminating potentially-confusing ambiguity in the article titles.—&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – Don't be fixing what's not broken. As the title of 3 notable films, 5 notable songs, and several other notable things and a well-known meaning not as a title, ''Yesterday'' is too ambiguous to be hijacking for one meaning as "primary". Leave it. ] (]) 02:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:39, 5 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yesterday (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.
Former featured articleYesterday (song) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 27, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 15, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject iconThe Beatles B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Misplaced Pages. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Misplaced Pages.
Note icon
This article was the project collaboration on at least one previous occasion.
To-do list:
For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
WikiProject iconRock music B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Most recorded song

Somebody has delited my comments that Yesterday is not the most recorded song. There is a documented discography over I Ain't Gonna Study War No More / Down by the Riverside in the Danish Peace Academy with about 3400 recordings of I Ain't Gonna Study War No More / Down by the Riverside:

http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/abase/sange/diskografi.xml

What about "Summertime"? The wikipedia page for that song lists 26,000 recorded versions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.238.32 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Holger Terp, Editor, The Danish Peace Academy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.0.198 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Over 3000 versions? Article at The Independent, says that Eleanor Rigby is #1 with 131 covers and Yesterday #2 with no number mentioned. Also, somebody said Summertime has been recorded almost 14000 times. Well on The Independent's list it's #7 only... Is The Independent usually considered a good source? 85.217.45.151 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In the introduction one can read: "The song remains popular today with more than 3,000 recorded cover versions." However, under the heading Reception one can read: ""Yesterday" is the most recorded song in the history of popular music; its entry in Guinness World Records suggests over 1600 different cover versions to date". Very confusing. Furthermore either write 3000 | 1600 OR 3,000 |1,600 but not 3,000 | 1600. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Scrambled eggs

"A common, mythical variation on this lyric often found is "Scrambled eggs / Oh my darling you've got lovely legs". Jane Asher makes a reference to this in her book Things He Said Today: "Don't believe that part about 'how I loved your legs.' That's bunk. My legs are horrid."" Well, the lyrics weren't necessarily about Jane Asher. In "any Years from Now On" Paul McCartney repeats the claim that the lyrics were "Scrambled eggs / Oh my darling you've got lovely legs". Of course, he might just be telling a good story, but if the only reason the claim is said to be untrue is that Jane Asher says she had horrible legs...--Deadworm222 00:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Top 100

I'm baffled by the claim that they had 23 singles in the Top 100 in 1976, because there wasn't a top 100 back then. I don't think there was even a "bubbling under" list at that point. Bonalaw 21:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Per the book "The Billboard book of Top 40 Hits" by Joel Whitburn, ISBN 0-8230-7499-4, pg. 9, The Hot 100 is the "main" billboard chart. I don't know if the "Top 100" chart also existed. I doubt it, but I can't say for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BooDog (talk • contribs) 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My sources say so – I'll see if I can dig up more. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

to re-review the article after I re-re-re-re-copyedited it, so I'm listing it here instead. The main complaint was that the facts, etc. were great, but the manner of presentation, particularly grammar, was nowhere near featured standard. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think they're wrong. I've reread it again, and can't find any writing problems. I'd renominate if I were you.] 20:02, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
  • I agree with Meelar. Ambi 07:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Me too. I love it. How long since it was rejected on FAC? I might renominate it myself, but I'd need to look at the old discussion first. Dandrake 02:54, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Based on your comments, I've renominated it. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not a good Choice

This is stupid. Encyclopedias are for the dissemination of information among the general public. Although I understand that there is interesting information here (a lot of interesting information at that) I do not think this would be useful to most people, and I also think that this would not go under the category of one of Misplaced Pages's most excellent articles.

Luckily encylopedias, like most everything else, are not made for individuals and their personal whims, likes, and dislikes. Your disinterest in music says more about yourself than music or encyclopedias. This article is accesible except in the section on the melody which does not explain (or even link to) the musical terminology used (with the exception of tonic). If this is the source of your complaint, rather than complain about something you don't understand, you could simply have asked people with a different, not infererior, area of knowledge to make those edits and explanations. Hyacinth 00:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but is including the lyrics to "Scrambled Eggs" a copyright violation? McCartney may not have released this version of the song, but he did write it and presumedly never released it in to the public domain. It's apparently the complete lyrics so it goes beyond fair use. MK 04:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Song lyrics

Why are song lyrics included in this article only as external link ? IMO the songs lyrics should be in the article for that song. Are there some copyright problems or what. 193.58.197.218 11:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are a confirmed copyright violation, and as such, cannot be included in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's it about??

We present three different theories on what this song is about!

First, on the Misplaced Pages main page:

It is a ballad about unrequited love

Second, in the article:

in June 1965, McCartney completed the finishing touches on the lyric, which touched upon the death of his mother

Third, at the end of the article:

Although the lyric is rather vague, it could be interpreted to reveal sadness about a lost loved one.
All of those make sense. The lyrics were partially inspired by McCartney's mother's passing; the song can be construed to reveal sadness about a lost loved one, which could be McCartney's mother, or a lover who spurned him (unrequited love). The song's about the leaving of a loved one, but the song's never more specific than mentioning the subject is female ("why she had to go"). Johnleemk | Talk 18:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to bust the party, but looking at the Biography, it claims "It has been suggested that the lyrics are about the loss of Paul's mother, and one line could possibly be read as that. If so, it was an unconscious element in the song's composition." I think, therefore, it's a bit of a stretch to say here that the lyrics definitely touch on the death of Paul's mother. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 02:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
When Paul learned of his Mother's death, he made a joke about the family losing her income. In a 1984 Playboy interview he said he regretted that comment for years. In the lyric he says something wrong after she leaves...just as after his mother died suddenly of breast cancer (and Paul and his brother were not told she was dying)he said something wrong. The lyrics are obviously and deliberately about his mother's death. Paul doesn't want to talk about it but it is pretty easy to figure out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.9.90 (talk • contribs)
This thread is 3 years old and the article has changed significantly since then. If you have reasonable sources for this information, then it would be good to have it in. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney credit "contract"

The top portion of this article says 'Although solely written by McCartney, due to his contract with the Beatles the song was credited to both him and John Lennon as "Lennon/McCartney".' This is incorrect.

The usage of the "Lennon/McCartney" writing credits for songs written by either Lennon, McCartney, or both during the Beatles years, was an informal agreement between the two artists and was never set in contractual form. Lennon and McCartney agreed early on in their career that any song either of them wrote would bear the credits "Lennon/McCartney" with the provision that they could change it at any time to make it seem more equal (for McCartney). John Lennon even honored this agreement for his non-Beatles "Plastic Ono Band" single, "Give Peace A Chance," released in 1969. Eventually, the "Lennon/McCartney" moniker was repeated so frequently that it became the de facto standard, and recent attempts to change the arrangement of the names by McCartney for live cover recordings his of Beatles work (that were primarily or solely written by him) to "by Paul McCartney and John Lennon" met with stiff resistance from Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, and from legions of Beatles fans hesitant to break from tradition.

Nice how Ono undid John's gesture of friendship to Paul by removing Paul from the "Give Peave a Chance" credit in the '90s. I don't recall any stink over that, and it was not put back as far as I know. John Cardinal 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics copyrights

I thought that most lyrics are copyrighted. The lyrics used in the article... Not sure, maybe fair-use policy will work fine? WB 23:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I know that those lyrics aren't the actrual lyrics of this song, however, does anyone know of their actual copyright status? I'm removing them until it is clarified. --FuriousFreddy 22:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If they are indeed based on an actual recording, then they would, I think, be covered under copyright by default (though I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Wikilaw expert). I'm glad they are gone anyway: I have serious doubts about their veracity and even if they are real it's stupid to have the nonsense lyrics when we can't have the real ones. Jgm 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The only possible way the actual original lyrics could have gotten here is if they were published somewhere, recorded or not. That makes them copyrighted by Paul. Fair use/fair dealing only allows a small amount of copyrighted material to be quoted for illustrative purposes. This is a serious issue that music labels are actively litigating against websites that serve lyrics. We don't want to get in the way of ham-fisted music industry lawyers. --Tysto 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about the "Scrambled Eggs" lyrics, don't they need to be removed from the Spanish page as well? 71.131.255.155 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

References are broken

REFERENCES are borken!!--Herzog 02:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC) someone want to find alternatives?

Well, the Globe and Mail reference has been broken for quite a while, and I think there's no alternative but to view it in the Internet archive (archive.org). The BMI link has mysteriously disappeared and I think that also will have to be viewed solely from the Internet archive. I have fixed the other two broken links, however. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just happened to try the five Craig Cross links under References and all appear to be broken. Perhaps someone else could try them to verify and, if necessary, one of the editors of this page come up with alternatives or archived versions. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I was just wondering how I go about fixing the broken links mentioned above. I am Craig Cross, and my Beatles book has been cited in numerous places throughout Misplaced Pages. 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/y.html should be http://www.beatles-discography.com/song-by-song/?s=yesterday

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

Londrummer (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lennon snubbing Yesterday?

As regards Lennon supposedly snubbing Yesterday in his song 'How Do You Sleep' I think that this is wrong. When he sings: The only thing you done was yesterday / and since you're gone you're just another day, he is referring to the fact that he didn't think any of McCartney's Beatles music was worth much with the exception of Yesterday. This confirms the ferocity of his attack through the song as he is attacking all the music McCartney had recorded with the Beatles and after (Another Day). Lennon often admitted himself later that he did not truly think this but that it was just the way he felt at the time he wrote the song. It was more an emotional song about his feelings than an actual true reflection of the way he felt about McCartney's music. Regardless of this it emphasises Lennons respect for the song.

Recent revert

I reverted the addition {{fact}} to several places in the article because it didn't seem to make sense to me; any editor who casually browsed through the references would see that the article is corroborated by them. We don't need to liberally sprinkle footnotes throughout the text, if that's what was being requested. One footnote per paragraph seems fine to me. The addition of footnotes to the lead was reverted because the wikipedia:lead section is supposed to summarise the article; footnoting a summary doesn't make sense. I kept the {{fact}} for the stuff about the music because that stuff really doesn't have any sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul and Pope John Paul

As much as I like the story, I can find absolutely no evidence of its truth, and it comes from a domain with a recent history of vandalism. I've marked with citation needed for now, but will probably delete if no one can corroborate. MBlume 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

List of artists/bands to cover Yesterday

I was wondering if anyone wanted to make a list of all the bands that have covered Yesterday? I'm not a HUGE fan of The Beatles, so I didn't want to start a list with inaccurate information. BadCRC 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, so we don't as a rule include a list of every group to have covered a song (especially since there are thousands of cover versions for Yesterday). I don't have many covers of the song, but I know that some of those who have produced a cover include Ray Charles and Richard Clayderman. Johnleemk | Talk 09:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"we don't as a rule include a list of every group to have covered a song (especially since there are thousands of cover versions for Yesterday)". You could turn that around and say that if any song deserves to have a list of artists that covered it, it would be "Yesterday". That's pretty discriminate. (Not that I'm advocating or editing such a list, mind you.) JRM · Talk 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Difference between takes

The article currently states:

“ On take 1, McCartney can be heard giving chord changes to George Harrison before starting, but he does not appear to actually play. Take 2 had two lines transposed from the first take: "There's a shadow hanging over me"/"I'm not half the man I used to be". ”

While it's true that take 2 has transposed lyrics compared to take 1, it should be noted that this is due to a vocal flub in take 1, not a re-working of the lyrics between takes, as is implied in the article. McCartney can clearly be heard smiling through the end of the second line and even more clearly in the "Oh" preceding "Yesterday came suddenly", indicating that he knew immediately that he flubbed the lyrics. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

3000 different recordings??

Summertime by George Gershwin is stated to have 13,985 recordings, why is this not mentioned?--Jaapkroe 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lennon quote

"We called it 'Scrambled Eggs' and it became a joke between us. We made up our minds that only a one-word title would suit, we just couldn't find the right one. Then one morning Paul woke up and the song and the title were both there, completed. I was sorry in a way, we'd had so many laughs about it."

This quote appears in The Beatles' Anthology (p. 165) and the credited source lists that book as a reference though not specifically for that quote. The actual quote says 'Scrambled Egg' rather than 'Scrambled Eggs'. Gr8white 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Full Lyrics To "Scrambled Eggs"

Found this first set of lyrics to Yesterday, from Keith Badman’s The Beatles Off The Record P.166:

"Scrambled eggs / Have an omelette with some Muenster cheese / Put your dishes in the wash bin please / So I can clean the scrambled eggs

"Join me do / There are lots of eggs for me and you / I’ve got ham and cheese and bacon too / So go get two, and join me do

"Fried, or sunny side / Just aren’t right the mix-bowl begs / Quick, go get a pan, and we’ll scramble up some eggs, eggs, eggs, eggs

Scrambled eggs / Good for breakfast, dinner time or brunch / Don’t buy six or twelve, buy a bunch / And we’ll have lunch on scrambled eggs"

It’s interesting, as it appears McCartney went to a lot of trouble with these lyrics, almost as if “Scrambled Eggs” was more than just a working title. Anyway, is it worth putting into the article? --Patthedog 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read the copyright bit further up, seems that you've already covered this. Does that mean that the lyrics can't even appear here? --Patthedog 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The lyrics are fake in any case, see this article: . 69.196.137.181 (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles-singles-yesterday-uk.jpg

Image:Beatles-singles-yesterday-uk.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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) 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarity between Yesterday and an old Italian song

Is there any proof apart from the cited website? Perhaps a link with some audio/video sample could be posted if it exists... 81.96.127.28 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No trace of a recording of this song on the net today. Even from sheet music, I would be able to tell. However, if it was from 1895, as claimed, by the time "Yesterday" was written it would probably have been out of copyright anyway, so it scarcely matters. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think what matters is that we don't propagate a hoax (or a gross exaggeration). The Antara report is vague: the actual quote from Greco is only two words, and the statement "sounded remarkably similar"—to whom? If this were truly notable, a mainstream news organisation or publisher would have covered it. Not only is there no trace of a recording of the song, this story aside, there is no trace of any kind at all. I propose to delete this para. from the article. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Most performed composition of all time?

For starters it seems a pretty dubious claim, and as such I'm not sure it's worth perpetuating from an unsubstantiated source, even if cited. That said, without any citation, it has no place in the article. Jun-Dai (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd have thought "Happy Birthday to You" would have a better claim to this. I don't have a Guinness Book of Records to hand, but I remember reading something about it. It may well be the song with most recorded versions, but that's not the same thing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought the most performed song was the one sung outside the pub at 11 o'clock that nobody can remember the words to. :)--andreasegde (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I always wake up with a bad back after one of those nights, and I can never remember why. --Patthedog (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre

I think it's rather Baroque pop than simply Pop. Why not to mention it in the infobox?--Betty kerner (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In principle, that seems plausible, but considering that the referenced genre is entirely unsourced, I wouldn't see it lasting long. Do you have a citation for this? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed merge

I oppose this merge. This article is about a song; the EP article is about a record. Two different things. Jgm (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merge also. The only reason to merge appears to be that the article about the EP is a stub. Hyacinth (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Yesterday (EP) could be regarded as a complete list (rather than a stub); a stub suggests there is more that should be added (maybe there is in this case - it will have been extensively reviewed). Plenty of album articles are little more than a list of the tracks. In any case, why merge to Yesterday rather than to one of the other 3 tracks? Occuli (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been two full weeks with no defense of the proposal; I'm removing the tags. Jgm (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


happy birthday

well,everybody celebrates yesterday's birhtday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.113.66 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Yesterday inspired by Besame Mucho?

Regarding the fears of Paul McCartney about the presumed imitation of Yesterday, we should pay attention to the following: Checking the scores of pieces from different composers, which were played by the Beatles, we should notice that in the famous song composed by Consuelo Velasquez "Besame Mucho", the musical structure of the intital phrases is very similar to the ones of Yesterday, furthermore, the harmonic composition, follow the same parameters in the two melodies, without one being a copy of the other. One should notice McCartney's inclination towards Latin American music, specially "Besame Mucho", which he sang and recorded at least twice without commercial interest. Recording "Till There Was You", was one of his ideas. The song is more or less a bolero sang in English by himself. Paul McCartney once wanted to be named by the pseudonymous of "Paul Ramone", another evidence of his Latin American inclination. There is another coincidence between these two songs: "Besame mucho" is the most often recorded and most popular spanish speaking song of the Twentieth Century--Marquez (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

one thing you surely got wrong, he never called himself Paul Ramon, he called himself Paul Ramone, that's why the ramones where named the ramones, after his old pseudonym.

Yesterday in films?

It would be interesting to list the films in which we can hear Yesterday; like for example Once upon a time in America. Eschette (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Eschette

Add "Classical Music" to the genre.

You can't ignore the fact this song has Classical instruments and playing. If you were just listening to the background instruments it was a pure classical music song. I saw earlier someone added this and it was deleted so... Yeah I think it's a good idea... I mean, there isn't an official genre for that, and: Acoustic rock / Ballad for Paul and his guitar + Classical Music for the background instruments. What d'you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Wiki libs (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

blue seventh in cello line

From the current article:

The string arrangement supplements the song's air of sadness, especially in the groaning cello melody and its blue seventh that connects the two halves of the bridge (on the line, "I don't know / she wouldn't say")

The term "blue seventh" mentioned usually indicates a note played slighty lower in pitch from the seventh scale degree. In this case, key of F major, the seventh scale degree note is E, the leading tone. The blue seventh would be a slightly flatted E, its pitch falling somewhere between E and E♭.

However, in the song the cello plays an E♭ proper. Or a least to my ear, very nearly an E♭. This is confirmed by Pollack, a fequently used source on this article and all Beatles music:

In response to a question he includes in his article. "There is a very strange (and interesting) seventh (E-flat in the key of F) played by the cello, in the middle of the bridge..." Pollack writes, "that E-flat in the cello is the only occurrence in the entire song of the flat seventh melodic degree and, showing up so late, lends an isolated, even surprising touch of the blues" - Pollack, Alan W (1 February 1993). "Notes on "Yesterday""
note: the term "seventh" used by the questioning writer is used correctly here in a general sense. This is different, however, then my use here - "seventh" as in, the seventh degree of the major scale(leading tone). More accuratly the sentence should read "...very strange (and interesting) flat seventh degree (E-flat in the key of F major)..."

The E♭ in key of F major is rather rare. It could be labled as: the subtonic(although this somewhat implies a context of a minor scale/key), the augmented sixth (in terms of intervals), or as Pollack calls it, the flat seventh melodic degree. Considering the latter, it is possible someone reading a source confused "flat seventh melodic degree" or other similar term with a seventh (an E) intentionally played slightly lower in pitch, "bent" or "flattened" by the cellist for effect.

I am also considering the fact the WP article on blue note states " is a note sung or played at a slightly lower pitch than that of the major scale for expressive purposes. Typically the alteration is a semitone or less, but this varies among performers and genres"

This implies that a flat seventh degree note proper could be labeled a "blue note". I agree with this as far as in loose or common usage it would be acceptable. However in a strict musicological sense, a flat seventh degree note(E♭ in key F major) should be called exactly what it is. The subtonic or flat seventh melodic degree. The term "blue note" should be reserved for certain "blue sounding" notes that fall in between the notes of the chromatic 12 TET musical scale.

It is also possible the article's cited source - Cahill, Greg (June-July 2005). "Encore: It Was 40 Years Ago Today..." is claiming that the note is, in fact, a slightly flatted seventh. This would conflict with Pollack, but since I cannot access the Cahill source online, I don't know if this is the case or not.

I would like to change "blue seventh" to "melodic flat seventh" or an equivalent, using the Pollack source, but I want to make sure I'm on the right track here. And if so, is this the best way to fix it? Racerx11 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ehh, once again I've overworded. Let me sum it up in a nutshell.

The article makes a sourced statement that the strange cello note is a blue note. I have a source stating its merely an E-flat. Are these the same thing? I believe they're not the same. If so, should we make a change?Racerx11 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, it's not a blue note, it's just that an E-flat there produces a slightly bluesy effect, as Pollack says. However, I suggest keeping the wording and book cite (since the Pollack website, while informative, doesn't really appear to constitute as reliable a source), but fixing the erroneous wikilinking to blue note. It should just link "blue" to blues. I've gone ahead and done this, pending any further comment. PL290 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will go along with that for now, but I feel the need to point out: Alan Pollock's notes on... series is already being used countless times as a source on many and most WP articles concerning Beatles music, including this one. No less than seven times in this article alone. Racerx11 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Understood; my only reason for mentioning it is to recommend keeping the book cite too. PL290 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, whatever further edits I make, if any, I will keep the book cite.Racerx11 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a couple minor edits and noticed another problem. The viola line described in the same paragraph alludes to the decending run F-C-B♭-A, is also the vocal melody in the word "day-ay-ay-ay" at the end of the line "now I long for yes-ter-day-ay-ay-ay" and refers to this as the segue from the chorus back to the verse. This is fine except its calling it the end of the "chorus" and we were refering to the very same section of the song as the "bridge". It could be either but to be consisten it has to be one or the other. I chose bridge because the real "hook" of the song is the at the end of each verse. The melody in "I believe in yesterday" and hummed at the end. This hook can serve as the proper "chorus" if one insists there be a chorus.
I made the change and I am satisfied with it now.Racerx11 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre

There's nothing "baroque" about yesterday... it should be "classical music, pop" Pilmccartney (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1st number one without any percussion ?

Hi - I'm new to Misplaced Pages editing, so please can you offer assistance?

I heard on the radio that Yesterday was the very first no 1 in the Uk charts without any percussion (the vast majority of course having drums playing the beat in a pop song - maybe one or two had some other percussion instrument (does anyone know - out of interest?). I believe Yesterday was unique in that the beat was played out by the bass strings of McCartney's guitar, with no other percussion instrument present.

My article was reverted due to lack of a credible citation. Can anyone help with corroboration of this proposed information? Thanks! Spursguy (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Why a special section for the Wet Wet Wet cover?

Nothing in the last section on the Wet Wet Wet cover offers any clue as to why it would merit special mention over the thousands of other covers. Perhaps an overzealous Wet Wet Wet fan? Seems like that should be omitted. 63.139.189.34 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please let consensus be reached; this can only be achieved given a reasonable time for discussion. It seems to be usual for notable cover versions that have charted to be included in the song's article- see Video Killed the Radio Star, for example. Arguably, this might mean including versions by Matt Monro, Marianne Faithfull and Ray Charles as well, but until that happens, perhaps we should keep it. If it happens, there would be little objection to forking the article into Cover Versions of "Yesterday" that Charted. Rodhullandemu 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"original" version on Jimmy Fallon

The article already mentions Paul singing "original" version "Scrambled Eggs" with Jimmy Fallon on Late Night. But really this version is most probably was written for the show (there are some speculation on various boards about who actually wrote it and if Sir Paul had a hand in this). I already wanted to fix the info, but then I realized that there's actually no source of information. While everybody agrees that this is a joke, but it's really only a speculation. On the other hand, currently article makes one think that this was actual performance of a real temporary lyrics. So, one is speculation, another is (most probably) just wrong. What should be done in this case? --188.134.32.80 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception and Kanye West

Can anyone explain how the uncited reference to the lyric by Kanye West relates to the reception of the song? It seems to me that is simply an attempt to link West's name to this song. Is there any way that a vote can be held to decide whether this sentence be removed? --95.112.222.74 (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1600 covers..... but....

It should be noted if those covers were done by professorial artists and if they were released professorially or not. Because 1600 just has me thinking youtube, Guinness or not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated to say 1600 by 1986—I don't think they had Youtube then... Uniplex (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

According to "The Compleat Beatles" this was 1600 recorded and released versions. The "Summertime" note is, I believe, spurious. There may well be 25,000 recorded versions of performances of Summertime, but these are not released versions, they are probably almost _all_ merely recordings of the work being performed. This is akin to buskers or piano bar players or cover bands recording their versions of Yesterday and adding that to Yesterday's total. I think the Summertime note is irrelevant and apples to oranges and should be removed. Yesterday, by many sources, claims the most professionally recorded and released versions of any song. The GBWR may not be completely definitive, but it is an accepted, well researched source, by all accounts. Tasterson (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary reviews

I came to this article looking for contemporary reviews of the song, as it was at the time unlike anything The Beatles had released before, or indeed unlike anything that had been released in pop music at the time. I wanted to see what original reviewers of the album had to say about this new direction and maturity for group, but there is nothing! Could there be a section added for this? Crazy Eddy (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Move request (May 2012)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria (both educational value and readership usage per the stats provided), WP:NOTADICT, and WP:NOTVOTE -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

– This song is most certainly the primary topic for "yesterday", as one of the most covered songs ever. I wouldn't know which entry on the dab page even comes close to this. See also "Something", another Beatles song that uses a common English word, and which probably isn't even as notable as this song. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am very sympathetic to the argument in favor of this move, as I don't believe that non-article uses should be considered. But I can't help thinking that a significant number of people searching for "Yesterday" might actually be looking for information on the day before the current date. I don't know if there's a good way to get them to that information, but there's a strong argument that we should at least take it into account. Powers 16:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Most operating systems have a built-in calendar that is far more easily accessible than Misplaced Pages. —  AjaxSmack  20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but most people are not rational. Come to think of it, though, I Support, with the addition of a hatnote linking either to Wiktionary or to the article on the previous days date (calculated with parser functions). A hatnote will suffice to capture any wayward searches. Powers 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are participating in the discussion, you should be aware of WP:MOSDAB and you might be able to get some assistance, clarification and other help from people who hang out at WT:DAB. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, absent evidence of primacy per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: a topic is primary if it is much more likely than any other topic and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought. Currently, 10 other articles share the "Yesterday (X)" namespace, and primacy would need to be demonstrated above all combined. ENeville (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Stats from stats.grok.se for the last 90 days:
Article Name Stats
Yesterday 10,807
Yesterday (song) 78,215
Yesterday (Shanice song) 465
Yesterday (Toni Braxton song) 4,600
Yesterdays (1933 song) 1,803
Yesterdays (Guns N' Roses song) 4,740
Yesterday (EP) 2,426
Yesterday (Grave Digger EP) 319
Yesterdays (Keith Jarrett album) 337
Yesterdays (Yes album) 3,545
Yesterdays (band) 512
Yesterday (1981 film) 322
Yesterday (2002 film) 2,091
Yesterday (2004 film) 5,748
Yesterday (TV channel) 7,543
Yesterday (Grey's Anatomy) 931
Yesterday (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) 460
Total excluding "Yesterday (song)" and the DAB page 35,842
Is this what you wanted to see? GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. GoingBatty has done what should have been done from the start, of course. Thank you! (I have boldly edited the last line of that table for clarity.)
Now, what do those statistics reveal, and what practical relevance do they have?
What the stats reveal
  • They show that enquirers are looking for all sort of things under the rubric "yesterday" (a very common English word, which after all is why it is so often chosen as a title).
  • They show that of the total pageviews (124,864), just 8.7% went to the DAB page. We have no idea what those enquirers were after: the Beatles song? another song? another topic covered by a WP article? the general temporal concept of "yesterday"? a conspectus of possible meanings for the term "yesterday" (so that they were entirely satisfied by the DAB page, and sought nothing beyond what it shows)?
  • They show that of the pageviews that bypassed the DAB page (91.3% of the grand total), 68.6% went directly to the Beatles song article, but we have little idea how many of those pageviews were satisfied: by comparison, 10.2% went directly to articles for songs called "Yesterday", but many such enquirers might have wanted those instead when they selected the imprecise title "Yesterday (song)", which describes their target just as accurately as it describes the Beatles song. Not all readers will have noticed the hatnote at the Beatles song article; we know about those, but not all readers do.
  • They show a lot more, which others might like to elucidate.
The practical relevance of the stats
  • They confirm for us that the Beatles song is the most famous and the most enquired after.
  • They do not remotely suggest that any loss of precision, by dropping the qualifier "(song)", would benefit any readers, in any way, anywhere.
    Those believing otherwise should show us an argument for such a benefit, taking into account how Misplaced Pages search prompts operate, and how Google search results operate.
  • They do suggest that greater precision would be helpful: Yesterday (Beatles song).
☺ ♫♪!
Noetica 01:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ridiculous. But what a superb example of how statistics can mislead! This proposal and its arguments should receive some serious scrutiny! Andrewa (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yesterday is too generic

Disambiguation should be reinstated. I came here not looking for a song. The last commenter above (Andrewa) is spot-on. It's misleading to hijack such a generic word using statistic misapplication. By same shoddy trick the page titled "Apple" should be redirected to the company and not the fruit since that's what the stat indicates. --Loginnigol (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What were you looking for? GoingBatty (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for info on Yesterday (similar to this). The more relevant & ontopic question you should ask is, why are a clique of pop star band fanatic editors so obsessed with hijacking a generic every-day term in an ENCYCLOPEDIA to express their rabid worship and adoration? Loginnigol (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Loginnigol and the opposers in the move discussion above. This is the silliest article move I've seen. WP:CONSENSUS was against the move in that discussion and I'm not basing that on "votes." That move should be sent to WP:Move review. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
@Loginnigol: - Once you discovered that Yesterday is an article about the Beatles song, did you find a Misplaced Pages article that contained the information you're looking for? Or to ask another way, if this was article was to be renamed to Yesterday (song) or Yesterday (The Beatles song), what would you want users to see when they type Yesterday? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
What I expected to discover is either (1st option) an article or (2nd option) a redirect to a broader article daling with days or (3rd option) let that be the disambiguation page with just a sentence or two written in the "refers to" and a list of the other alternative things that are associated with the word. All these three options were not taken - instead a clique of rabid 1960s pop music fanatics decided to hijack the word for a commercial product - fraudulently pretending as it wasn't an extremely common English word that is literally spoken by a person almost every single day! Loginnigol (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they were pretending it's not an English word - they were tying to figure out what people who search Misplaced Pages for "Yesterday" really want. Other than a dictionary definition of the word, what information about "yesterday" were you looking for? Are you going to write an article about "Yesterday" the common word, or are you going to suggest where Yesterday should redirect to? If you ended up at Yesterday (disambiguation), where would you go from there to get the info you wanted? GoingBatty (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it's hard to imagine from the above discussion how the RM closed for move. This needs to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempted editing of, paraphrasing now, the structure discussion in the article re the song "Yesterday" was aborted...as I have a gig to go to and the referencing format required in Wiki does not fit what I would like to report as my reference.

Hello, I am new to the idea of revising Misplaced Pages articles.

I simply attempted to revise and more accurately report the chord structure of this song "Yesterday" in the section of the article, if I recall, and I am probably paraphrasing its name, called "Structure of the Song". I have 58 years of learning to render songs on the keyboard by ear. This means I hear it, i.e. I hear the actual artist(s) singing and/or playing his/her/their instruments, seek the chord structure, the movements by the "bass" notes of the music between chords, other "additions" played by the various voices and instrument to the chord, and the notes hit by possible singer(s) of a song, and then I play the song as I hear these things on my piano or whatever keyboard I have at the time.

Misplaced Pages's formal approach to editing caused me some difficulties, so I stopped. Mostly, the referencing rules of Misplaced Pages were a challenge to me. How does on "reference" what one "hears"? I don't know....

Thank you Misplaced Pages for this fine article, although I wish I had the time to fix the purported chord structure of this song given in your article by one Pollack in 1993. Indeed, as at least this man BENSON writing this hears the song, there are several errors in these two paragraphs about the two "parts" of the song's structure...errors can be clearly seen there regarding the chord descriptions, in particular. This is quite sad to see on the "most important" or whatever, song of the 20th century. So, everyone will see the incorrect information given by Pollack.. This is not meant as any attempt to criticize the fine reputation of M. Pollack, merely to suggest that some important chords he/she describes that are in the song are either missing from Pollack's description, or improperly described, at least in this man BENSON's point of view, I. E. from his "ears" point of view.......So good by for now to Misplaced Pages editing for me.....I wish you all of the best, but I have a gig to prepare for................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corky at (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Move request (June 2014)


This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time.. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed.
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: The consensus of this June 2014 move discussion is to move the article Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song). There is also a rough consensus to move Yesterday (disambiguation) → Yesterday, at least until another discussion is had about the primary article title.

The supporters of this move greatly cited a lack of meeting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or that if the article had once been the primary topic, it is no longer. The opposers cited that the article was indeed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the article title. They also cited WP:NOTDICT in response to the primary topic being about Yesterday (time). Although this may be true, it does not have bearing on whether the current article is the primary topic or not. The supporters split the difference on whether the time article would be the primary topic. The opposers also assert that the statistics show that the current location of the article is where users want to end up, whereas the supporters assert that the statistics are skewed due to where the article currently is being easier to access, but not necessarily where editors intend to end up. The supporters show that the article topic had many different places that users could want to end up, and that none were more of a necessary primary topic than the others.

In all, there was more support for moving the articles. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that one of our editors, in the spirit of creating a better encyclopedia, wrote a sourced article about Yesterday (time) when it was revealed that there was not one, but we could benefit. This, folks, is what making an encyclopedia is about. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song) – The above move request was clearly against this, and yet it was moved anyway. That is the silliest reading of consensus I've ever heard. It should be undone. wirenote (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: The original destination for this proposed move was "Yesterday (song)"; this was changed to "Yesterday (Beatles song)" per consensus (see discussion below).

  • Support. It should never had been moved as there was no convincing case of primary topic. The first criterion is A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.; page views of 2-1 certainly does not suggest much more likely than any other topic. Zarcadia (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - it is not easy for an article to be written on the concept of yesterday. This is really the only encyclopedic claimant to primary topic (a slew of minor instances on Yesterday (disambiguation) notwithstanding. It bears mentioning that this was a malformed move request, anyway. Red Slash 21:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In ictu oculi, you're kidding me! No way! Thank you on behalf of the encyclopedia and readers everywhere. That's really cool! I loved your article. Okay, maybe this page could move... I'm not sure yet. Red Slash 06:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The purpose of DAB pages and PRIMARYTOPICs is to quickly navigate the user to the information we have on what they are looking for. With that in mind, the song wins hands down, as far as I can see. To me, this is the main point of discussion here: Can the PRIMARYTOPIC be a topic that we don't have a page for? To me, it is makes it very inefficient to include non-page topics in the possible list of PRIMARYTOPICs. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As I read the current statistics, a vast majority of the people who arrive at this page are happy about reaching here and do not click through to the DAB page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. They may not have been happy, but unless they were exceptionally high strung or not especially interested in the topic they were looking for, they would click the DAB. I stand by my argument. Putting it in numbers (just as a guide), changing the status quo would, in my opinion, increase the average amount of clicks it would take someone to find the right page for the "Yesterday" concept they are looking for. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • At least as things are now (and I think have been for a while - if I'm wrong, someone give the history here, its important when looking at the stats), Yesterday is the song. Someone entering Yesterday in the search box would get to the song, be "happy" and not click the dab link. If entering Yesterday brought them to the DAB page (as proposed), they would have to click the song link to get to where they want to go. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear on the history. When entering Yesterday brought you to the DAB page (the "choices" page you mention), someone looking for the song would have to click a second time to get to what they need. Those looking for other yesterday topics would have to click to the DAB page ("for other uses" link), then their topic. If I am correct in interpreting that the number of visits to the song page are significantly higher than anything else, then the status quo (Yesterday being the song) is the most efficient arrangement. To me, that's a reasonable metric for choosing. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that yesterday is simply not a synonym for the past, synonyms are interchangeable in sentences without affecting the meaning.For example buy and purchase. You can't do that with yesterday and the past. In linguistics yesterday is actually a hyponym of the the past (a hyponym shares a type-of relationship with its hypernym). 49.197.9.220 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Doesn't the word "yesterday" have other meanings other than as suggested by a gang of balding 60s sycophants? How important is the song to a Lady Gaga fan, to somebody interested in the philosophy of time? Or just a simple question about "the past." There is nothing that should have primarytopic over a dicdef. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to get personal. My comments are based on the statistics. No other page, especially the DAB page, has more hits. Why not just put a wikitionary link box on this page? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. One of our editors has taken it upon himself to alleviate that lack of a primary topic article by writing Yesterday (time). I note that today and tomorrow are both disambiguation pages. I would propose that there should be a single article combining the temporal concepts of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and that all three titles should redirect there as the clear primary topic of the terms (and the topics for which all others by those names are named). bd2412 T 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you proposing the title "Yesterday, today, and tomorrow" for such a combined article? Not sure how I feel about that. Anyhow, we can address that separately after the present proposal is resolved, I think. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yesterday is not the song, period. It should either be a disambiguation page, or an article on the period (either yesterday (time) or past) I don't find your solution satisfactory. I think the compromise position is to have a disambiguation page, while the proper solution is to point the title to one of the "past" articles. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. The well-established policy at Misplaced Pages is that only "Beatles", not "The Beatles", is to be used as the proper name in reference to the band. Of course, the article "the" may be used before "Beatles" in a sentence (and it should be capitalized if it begins a sentence). Please see this RfC closure for more information. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Information: Please see the following data table, which I've just spent several hours preparing. (Yeah, I know.) Methodology: First I used the article-title grep tool here to compile a list of all articles and redirects whose titles begin with "Yesterday (". To this list I added the title "Yesterday". I then removed from the list all redirects that target a canonical page in the list; the other redirects I left in. Next, I used the 90-day pageviews tool here, substituting each title in turn and recording its view count. Then I assembled all the information into the table shown below.
Pageviews of Yesterday articles, counted during the 90-day period ending 2014-06-11
Title of article or redirect Views Share Notes
Yesterday 61,479 65.8%
Yesterday (TV channel) 6,861 7.34%
Yesterday (2004 film) 6,758 7.23% Includes spike of 460 pageviews (6x average) on 2014-05-04; Yesterday had 706 that day
Yesterday (video game) 6,706 7.18% Includes spike of 932 pageviews (30x average) on 2014-04-30; Yesterday had 1,005 that day
Yesterday (EP) 4,131 4.42%
Yesterday (disambiguation) 3,061 —
Yesterday (Toni Braxton song) 2,652 2.84%
Yesterday (2002 film) 1,511 1.62%
Yesterday (Ashley Roberts song) 1,407 1.51%
Yesterday (Shanice song) 460 0.49%
Yesterday (1981 film) 419 0.45%
Yesterday (Grave Digger EP) 258 0.28%
Yesterday (Grey's Anatomy) 234 0.25%
Yesterday (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)
Yesterday (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)		 200 0.21% Combined total for both redirects
Yesterday (1959 film) 145 0.16%
Yesterday (time) 116 0.12% Article was created 2014-06-04
Yesterday (Leona Lewis song) 114 0.12%
   Total (excluding disambiguation page) 93,451 100%
Intuitively, I'd like to see this article moved to "Yesterday (Beatles song)". But the stats shown above clearly demonstrate that the subject of this article is the primary topic for the unqualified term "Yesterday". Quoting from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

Note that a topic obtaining even a simple majority of pageviews is, by definition, being viewed "more... than all the other topics combined". This article is receiving nearly two-thirds of all pageviews for "Yesterday" articles and redirects. And its closest competitors each have less than an 8% (or one-thirteenth) share. The evidence is overwhelming. Accordingly, it appears to me that if the name of this article is to be changed, some other rationale besides WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will have to be put forward. — Jaydiem (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jaydiem for all your hard work there, but I still agree with your comment, Intuitively, I'd like to see this article moved to "Yesterday (Beatles song)". There are two reasons for this, one, that under no circumstance can a cultural title hijack a common usage word and two, WP:SONGDAB applies and is sanctioned by WP:AT. NB To identify a Beatle song as a Beatle song can't be a bad idea, in any event? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Richhoncho: Now, see, that's a plausible argument unrelated to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC! And it's why I previously offered my Compromise proposal (see above): to make this move as proposed, but also to leave "Yesterday" as a redirect to this article, rather than to Yesterday (disambiguation). That would offer the benefits of specificity in the article title, while also making this article the target of Yesterday, in respect of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we were to do that, I would place a notice in the body of the "Yesterday" redirect to warn future editors not to change the redirect target without a consensus discussion, and refer them to this discussion for background. — Jaydiem (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The only problem with using WP:SONGDAB here, is that it starts out, "When necessary...". If a song title is a primarytopic, then disambiguation isn't necessary, and wp:songdab doesn't kick in. Dohn joe (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - only 65% of page views? (or in fact 54% if the 19,013 views for Past are included). This barely satisfies the lesser 1st half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (1. A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.), then without question the song fails the second more important half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (2. A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). This article should never have been moved to an ambiguous title contrary to WP:SONGDAB, contrary to previous RM consensus. A clear title should definitely be restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy to support the claim that the usage aspect is "lesser" than the long-term significance aspect; if you do, please cite it. Also, I see no justification for your downplaying the fact that, based on the statistics I presented earlier, this article is the primary topic for the term "Yesterday". At 65.8% prevalence, it is indisputably "more likely than all other topics combined"; and the second-most prevalent topic being at a mere 7.34%, this article is indisputably "much more likely than any other topic." It's quite cut-and-dried in that regard. As for long-term significance, the fact that this song continues to garner such a high level of interest more than 50 years after its release makes it extremely unlikely that it will be forgotten about anytime soon. Thus, the song is clearly the primary topic of the term "Yesterday" for Misplaced Pages's purposes. However, there are plausible rationales for this proposed move that do not rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When a clear majority of readers searching for a term are looking for one particular topic, we shouldn't go out of our way to obstruct them. By all evidence this song is the clear primary topic among all the other articles.--Cúchullain /c 13:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per prior RM, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:NOTDICT. 65% much more than "barely" satisfies the usage portion of the primary topic criteria, and the Beatles song does have enduring notability and educational value, and that value is not substantially less than the relative time reference. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I see both sides here. If there were ever a case for a song to supplant a normal English word as a PRIMARYTOPIC, this would be it. Still, yesterday (time) is an incredibly significant concept, far more than a common dictionary definition. Ultimately, the song derives its power from the primary meaning of the word, which is in relation to time. No pageviews can subvert this relationship; poignant though it is, the song is derivative of the central temporal concept, which maintains its longstanding significance. I also agree with SmokeyJoe that the close of the previous RM was in error, and it is right to correct it here with a new consensus. Xoloz (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • While I follow your thinking, I always step back and say "why do we have the DAB page and the concept of the PRIMARYTOPIC," and for practical reasons go the other way. It may seem a bit odd for those that are looking for "Yesterday (time)", but for a majority of people it makes Misplaced Pages easier to use. I consider the pause "Yesterday (time)" people take to tip their heads wondering what happened is a reasonable tradeoff for this ease of use. To tell the truth, though, I think most people will find what they are looking for through other means (i.e. google). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, per my reasoning at #Yesterday is too generic. It seems that my pointing out in the Womanizer move discussion how silly it is that the Yesterday article be about the Yesterday song led to this second move request. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as per the above WP:COMMONNAME reasons. --IJBall (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Do you mean oppose? How does wp:commonname support the move? Dohn joe (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry – meant Support based on the previous WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reasons (i.e. that the song isn't) as given by others above. --IJBall (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support restoring the old article arrangement that was changed without clear consensus to support. The table above for some reason drops the hits on the dab page from the percentage column. That inflates the percent for hits on this article. Commonsense would seem to say that the day is the primary topic if we really have one. In the end, decisions to move, or not move, are based on consensus, guides and policies and not page hits (and 65% is too low in my book). Vegaswikian (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Another word about the page hits. Given that we did not have an article about the day until after this discussion started, we really don't know the true number of hits for that page. I believe that we all know that if we started to link that article, in other places it would be much higher. But then maybe policy says not to since it is commonly know and should not be linked (and then how does the hit count measure that?). Either way, another nail in the coffin for the usability of the hit counts. Of course one could adjust the hits for the time article to convert usage from 7 to 90 days giving it about 1,500 hits. Not bad for an article with no inbound links. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
      How do you get 1,500 hits? I look at the past seven days, and count 27 views, which extrapolates to about 325 views over 90 days, or between 3 and 4 pageviews per day. Dohn joe (talk) 17:05, 27 June 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.

Pageview stats and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

The following quote is from near the end of the RM discussion shown above:

  • Support restoring the old article arrangement that was changed without clear consensus to support. The table above for some reason drops the hits on the dab page from the percentage column. That inflates the percent for hits on this article. Commonsense would seem to say that the day is the primary topic if we really have one. In the end, decisions to move, or not move, are based on consensus, guides and policies and not page hits (and 65% is too low in my book). Vegaswikian (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of the pageview stats table referred to here, I'd like to respond to Vegaswikian's comment.

  • Re: "The table above for some reason drops the hits on the dab page from the percentage column." — That's because the table was intended to show the relative interest in the various Yesterday-related topics. A disambiguation page is not a topic; it's a gateway to topics. It's reasonable to assume that visits to the disambiguation page were followed very shortly thereafter by a visit to the page of the reader's desired topic, which would be reflected in the stats for that topic.
  • Re: "That inflates the percent for hits on this article." — If the disambiguation-page views were included in the denominator for calculating the relative view-share, the share for this article would be reduced from 65.8% to 63.7%, which is inconsequential to the conclusions to be drawn from the stats. Moreover, changing the denominator in this way would reduce the calculated share for each topic in equal proportion. Therefore the "inflation" argument is without merit.
  • Re: "Commonsense would seem to say that the day is the primary topic if we really have one. In the end, decisions to move, or not move, are based on consensus, guides and policies and not page hits (and 65% is too low in my book)." — I agree that RM decisions are (or should be) based on consensus in keeping with applicable Misplaced Pages editing policies and guidelines; however, the rest of this statement contradicts this. Let me again remind everyone of the official definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

This definition clearly states that when several topics are associated with a particular term, and one of those topics is demonstrably sought by Misplaced Pages readers far more frequently than the others, it is the one to be considered primary. Note that this definition makes no reference to "commonsense" or to "my book"; it depends strictly on actual usage by readers. And the most empirical way to determine the relative frequency with which various topics are sought is to compare their pageview statistics. As the definition states, if one topic obtains a majority of views, and "much more" views than the second-most-popular topic, it is primary. That is the official Misplaced Pages policy.

In sum, this article is the only Yesterday-related topic that satisfies the official definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I have seen no valid arguments to the contrary. Nevertheless, as I stated in the RM discussion above, I feel the proposed move was justified for reasons unrelated to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — Jaydiem (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Closure of June 2014 move request

While I don't object to the outcome of adding the disambiguator "(Beatles song)" to the title of this article, I feel that the closure of discussion of the most recent move request (above) was premature and incorrectly executed. Some current discussion of this issue can be found on the user talk page of the admin who closed the discussion: User talk:TLSuda#Requested move: Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song) — Jaydiem (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That looks to me like the closer User:TLSuda is being hassled. Consensus was 16-8, am I miscounting? RMs aren't a vote but when we get 16-8 that's the end of it normally. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, RMs aren't a vote. So, why are you counting votes? Consensus, by definition, is not determined by votes. Moreover, WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome specifically states that in rendering decisions about RMs and discussion closures, any expressions of support or opposition that are not firmly grounded in established WP policies, empirical evidence, and sound reasoning, are to be disregarded. Properly-rendered decisions are to be based on a thoughtful analysis of the actual concerns and reasoning expressed by each participant in the discussion. It appears to me that that is not what happened here. (My concern here is less in regard to this particular article than to the RM and closure review process in general, as highlighted by this one example.) — Jaydiem (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2014

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

– It's time to revisit this now that we have some solid page view statistics to base the request on. The Beatles song has been viewed 45,000 times in the past 90 days. Yesterday (time), which some claimed is the primary topic, is at only 1,100 views in the past 90 days. So I think this one is obvious. -- Calidum 08:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom, i.e. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOTDICT (Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary). —  AjaxSmack  09:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and AjaxSmack. "Yesterday" is an important word, for sure, but it's much less significant as an encyclopedic subject than the Beatles song. This move would make it easier for most "Yesterday"-seeking readers to get where they're going quicker. Some editors may not agree with our readers' choices, but they are making it pretty clear here. Dohn joe (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Red Slash 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, There was overwhelming support for the move above (somebody mentions 16 to 8). I also find it perverse that anybody would expect to song at the dicdef. 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) 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
When I type "Yesterday" into the Wiki search box, "Yesterday (Beatles song)" is listed third (the disambig. page is #1). That's a lot higher listing than I get with most of the searches I do. The current move proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. --IJBall (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in part, oppose in part. Thank you for the ping, Flyer22. The guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC haven't changed in the past six months; the text there still says:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

There can be no reasonable disagreement that when readers come to Misplaced Pages and search for "Yesterday", it is overwhelmingly likely (nearly 70%, with the next-most-likely topic being under 10%) that it's the Beatles song they have in mind. Moreover, the dictionary meaning of the word "yesterday" is hardly worthy of its own separate article in an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, because "yesterday" is a commonly-used word in the English language, I think the course of action that best serves our readers is to do all of the following three things:

(1) Keep the "(Beatles song)" tag on the title of this article;
(2) Re-title the disambiguation page as "Yesterday (disambiguation)"; and
(3) Make Yesterday a redirect to Yesterday (Beatles song).

I realize this type of arrangement is not the standard procedure on Misplaced Pages, but in this exceptional case I think it's the best solution. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this suggestion has merit. --IJBall (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Quite an interesting compromise (a rare thing these days). I could be swayed to support this. I have notified the two listed WikiProjects to see if they have any other ideas that could help us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:NOTDICT. Both usage and enduring notability criteria are met, and the Beatles song's value is not substantially less than the relative time reference. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Amazing how you cite "Usage" as a criteria for this move, while arguing the complete opposite elsewhere. I see how it is now.--JOJ 23:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOTDIC. The current stats just further prove what was already clear in the last RM: this is the by all evidence. As I said before, when the vast majority of readers are looking for the same thing there's no benefit to throwing roadblocks in their way.--Cúchullain /c 14:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose still – The "sometimes" in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should not be ignored. And I don't buy There can be no reasonable disagreement that when readers come to Misplaced Pages and search for "Yesterday", it is overwhelmingly likely (nearly 70%, with the next-most-likely topic being under 10%) that it's the Beatles song they have in mind. since we don't have stats on what people type, nor on what they're looking for, when they come to wikipedia. I also don't think 70% is a high enough threshold for a primarytopic claim, since a disambig page is so much more useful than an article that is not the one you're looking for. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • e don't have stats on what people type, nor on what they're looking for, when they come to wikipedia.

    Well, sure we do: pageview statistics. When one topical article is viewed nine times as often as another, it's pretty clear that our readers are greatly more interested in the first than the second. Moreover, when we know that about two-thirds of readers seeking "Yesterday" are interested in the Beatles song, we should not put a disambiguation page in their way. (A disambiguation page is not, of course, more useful than the article one is looking for.) Nevertheless, leaving the "(Beatles song)" tag makes it unmistakable what the article is about, even when the article title is all that one can see (such as in the dropdown list of suggested search results that appears as one types into the Misplaced Pages search box). Putting these two observations together leads to my hybrid suggestion above, the essence of which is to make Yesterday a redirect to Yesterday (Beatles song), and add the "(disambiguation)" tag to the "Yesterday" disambiguation page. — Jaydiem (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support - The 70% convinces me, despite the uncertainty in the statistics, that the song is currently the Primary Topic. Perhaps not forever, but I don't think that's our criteria. While I also have the feeling of "not again," we DO have the additional information about the number of hits with the DAB page in place. Its clear the "dictionary definition" is not getting much attention - which I believe was the originating idea of the recent change. I like Jaydiem's suggestion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the previous arguement - this current setup makes it easy to spot incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts 08:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There are other ways to make incorrect link spotting work. Having all content pages disambiguated with a (phrase) and the DAB page at 'Yesterday (disambiguation)', then nothing should link to 'Yesterday', which itself would redirect to the primary topic (or the DAB page). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a great solution to a problem that never existed in the first place. Lugnuts 17:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Simply rebutting the "oppose" comment above that indicates the current setup takes care of this problem. I haven't looked to see if it IS a problem. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is more just a "gut feeling" rather than links to straight facts and figures, but as notable as the McCartney Beatles song is, the entity of "the day before today" is far more significant in daily use, and I would say I use the latter far more than the former. Consider the sentence starting "Crikey, did you see what happened on Eastenders / Prime Minister's Question Time / the bus / the way to work ...." Ritchie333 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds of the long-term significance of the concept of "the day before today". 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) 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Egsan Bacon, the Pink example is an excellent example. I've seen editors simply link "Pink" when meaning for the link to direct readers to the Pink (singer) article, but I still don't think that I'd support the singer being the target of the term while having a Pink (color) article for the color. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
And looking at your contributions a few minutes ago, I see that a similar move discussion is going on at Talk:Something (Beatles song). Wow. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
How have you determined that the dict def. is the most likely searched for topic? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Fellow editors: It seems clear from pageview stats that the Beatles song is the primary topic with respect to usage, but there's a continuing difference of opinion on whether a basic word like "yesterday", which arguably doesn't merit a separate encyclopedia article, should nevertheless be considered primary with respect to long-term significance simply because it's commonly used in everyday speech, or should not be considered primary because "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary". Looking at the history of this RM and the two that preceded it, this disagreement seems largely impervious to persuasive arguments from either side. In such circumstances, we must seek an alternative solution that can achieve consensus by avoiding the point of intractable disagreement, guided by the primary concern of what best serves our readers. Accordingly, I put forth this alternative proposal (repeating from my earlier comments that were part of the discussion above):

(1) Keep this article at "Yesterday (Beatles song)";
(2) Move the disambiguation page to "Yesterday (disambiguation)"; and
(3) Make "Yesterday" a redirect to "Yesterday (Beatles song)".

While I acknowledge that this arrangement is not the standard procedure on Misplaced Pages, in this exceptional case I submit that it's the best solution, as it serves our readers well by getting most of them directly to the article they're seeking, while also eliminating potentially-confusing ambiguity in the article titles.— Jaydiem (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories: