Talk:Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)/Archive 1

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

Covers section

I'll state up-front that I am totally uninterested in the instrumental versions, but I'd like to see more information on the Bette Midler and Prince covers. Did Bette Midler really perform a soul song with full orchestration? What does "stylistically similar" mean? I found few references to the Prince cover (here is one: [1]), so I assume that it has never been recorded. Is that correct? If we can simply say "has been performed in concert but not recorded" and/or "Available only on the rare bootleg release Bette Midler and Friends Sing Your Soul Favourites", I'd like to see that in the article. Jkelly 04:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Fro mthe 30-second clip iTunes let me hear of Midler's, it sounds rather close to the original Temptations version, with a slightly more pop feel. AMG says nothing about Prince's version, so I think it is a concert-only performance (I derived the list of covers from a website dedicated to covers). --FuriousFreddy 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Would the version by Gwyneth Paltrow & Babyface qualify as a notable cover? 90.196.4.217 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lyrical Interpretation

The editor of the article interprets the bridge's meaning as: "The narrator has not made any attempt to approach the woman because, after having been hurt by a previous lover, he is simply too afraid to embrace the possibility of heartbreak again." However, another interpretation as to the bridge's meaning (specifically the line "Don't ever let another take her love from me") would be that the narrator simply doesn't want another [person] to steal his woman away. 75.92.169.24 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ryan Whitley

Fair use rationale for Image:Temptations-movie-just-my-i.jpg

Image:Temptations-movie-just-my-i.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 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) 08:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SomeGirls78.jpg

The image Image:SomeGirls78.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Release date

According to [2], both the Gordy and the Tamla Motown singles were issued in 1970, not 1971. Anyone have a source for the date? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured article?

How on earth is this FA quality? There's a maintenance tag and 2/3 the article isn't sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It was promoted in 2005, when the FA criterion were far less strict then they currently are. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Then why is it today's FA? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul obviously picked it for the TFA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
There are entire paragraphs without citations, this article would be demoted at FAR. Of course, we can't do anything on this since we are bind to this antiquated TFA process that couldn't be even slightly modified in years. We can't add cleanup tags or send the article to FAR, that would be disruption. We can only try to save the appearances by copy-editing, even if profound problems are likely to stay... Cenarium Talk 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can send it to FAR: the WP:FAR instructions require a three-day wait after mainpage date for good reason. Editors tend to jump the gun and nominate the TFA at FAR the minute it appears, when deficiencies are often cleaned up by three days after the maindate, so a FAR isn't needed. And driveby editors, who don't know FA standards, nominate articles at FAR because "they don't like them". If the issues aren't addressed in three days, then you can bring it to FAR. A stint on the mainpage often results in dramatic improvement (like Jbmurray's copyedit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through it now. It's not in such bad state, really, though indeed it would probably not pass FAC right now. But there's not much that's particularly controversial here. And it's not without inline citations altogether. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like the quotes are sourced, and everything else should be fairly easy to cite. Good work copyediting the article, by the way. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I confess. I put the {{unrefsect}} tag in the Song information section. Honestly, I've been wondering for quite some time how one can justifiably write a citationless discussion of a song's instrumentation without running afoul of WP:OR. Seeing this article hit the main page led me to ask that question again, which in turn prompted my placement of the maintenance tag. Call me disruptive, but I was trying to get someone to either 1) provide a citation, 2) justify how such commentary is not OR, 3) Ax the commentary. What I didn't count on was Juliancolton simply reverting my change saying "I know the article needs work, but we really shouldn't have cleanup tags on the main page". This is news to me. Do TFAs get special 24-hr passes for their policy violations? Or is this an invocation of WP:IAR? Noca2plus (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable that articles on the Main page, which sometimes receive over 100k views during the day, should remain free of maintenance tags. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not unreasonable that articles on the main page be free of original research, either. But apparently that didn't stop it from happening! My point is that I'm shocked (just Shocked!) that this article would 1) make it to FA, then 2) make it to TFA, and then 3) enjoy the protection from people like me trying to publicly point out that this article still needs fundamental work. I sense Juliancolton is concerned that the appearance of maintenance tags on the main page is an indication that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Which, of course, it is. I see no need to obscure that fact for the purposes of the main page. In fact, I wish more of the world understood the WIP nature of Wikipedia. Noca2plus (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's kind of humorous that the header of that section goes against the guidance in WP:WikiProject_Songs#Main_body. Less strict FA criteria indeed. Noca2plus (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who don't understand this being a FA. The lyrics are misquoted (should be "out in the country", not "off"). And the entire paragraph about having a "previous lover" & wanting to prevent another breakup screams OR (as it appears to be pulled out of thin air)...it's like whoever wrote that paragraph never even listened to the song! I only read the article because I love this song, but as I was reading I was thinking they must've heard a different version than the one I know. BrainyBroad (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...was this ever FA?? Having a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me), the nomination was never closed actually, (so technically I could oppose this today :P) and by having a look at the discussion it seems that even in 2005 consensus was that universal...Does anyone check these articles before they go on Today's FA? I find it hard to believe that this article it at the same quality of Wednesday's TFA Group (mathematics). — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 05:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was and is an FA. Closing tags weren't used in 2005, and even if they were, mean nothing. An article is FA if Raul moved it from WP:FAC to WP:FA. The current process includes closing tags when the bot processes a FAC, but that still isn't what defines whether an article is an FA. See WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course I am aware that this is FA. I was simply using the context as a symbol to point out the poor quality of this article compared to today's FA standards! Didn't mean to sound too literal. — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 06:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. How did something from 3 years ago just get picked now as TFA? Shouldn't it have been on the main page back in 2005, not now? Did someone really leave out that step that long? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this shouldn't be the FA of the day, nor a FA. Most sections are unsourced. Gothbag (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hell, this is barely even a C-class Article! What's wrong with wikipedia theese days?PeaceOfSheet (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Guys, remember that this article was promoted to FA three years ago, when the FA standards were far lower than they currently are. This just happens to still be featured. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia; it's simply how it was three years ago. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Verifiability is core principle and by featuring this on the main page we send out a poor message. As to the comments above, I can only imagine that three years ago there was more wrong with Wikipedia's FA standards than there are today. Greenshed (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      • So is it really necessary to have a "Composition" section discussing the background of this song? Because it's tagged 100% unreferenced but it seems to serve to get the reader to understand the background behind it. I've searched Google Books and no luck so far. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)\
        • OK I just cleaned up the section in question and added allmusic as source. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ, there's something wrong with Wikipedia if we put an article with blatant problems with sources and original research on the Main Page. This article doesn't represent our best work and we have enough FAs by now to select only the best among the best. This article has been on Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems since June 2006 [3], the problems won't be resolved that easily. We have been extensively criticized for our lack of reliability, featuring this kind of articles can only back the critics and tarnish our reputation. Articles have to be adapted to today's requirements, especially featured articles, and most especially today's featured articles. It highlights, again, that this old TFA process is not adapted to today's needs. Cenarium Talk 21:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The TFA process is clearly not working; had Raul taken only a quick, critical look at this article before moving it to TFA, he would have picked another. Lampman (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

attention

I've added the attention variables to the {{songs}} and {{WPRollingStones}} templates as this featured article has been tagged needing attention to its citations. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:SomeGirls78.jpg

The image File:SomeGirls78.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me). 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) 20:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Just_My_Imagination_(Running_Away_with_Me)/Archive_1&oldid=1195602713"