Talk:Everyday Is Like Sunday

Fair use rationale for Image:MorrisseyEverydayIsLikeSunday.jpg

Image:MorrisseyEverydayIsLikeSunday.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morrissey Everyday Is Like Sunday.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Morrissey Everyday Is Like Sunday.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Shouldn't "Everyday" be actually spelt "Every day"? 89.100.116.208 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes, but Morrissey is a notoriously poor speller. See, for example, Cemetry Gates (sic). Pburka (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "spelling" as such, but usage - "everyday" means "commonplace", rather than "each and every day" 2A01:CB19:6FD:9700:646:65FF:FED2:4FCC (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case the adjective is not meant, but literally 'each and every day'. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Within the last week, I have twice overheard the same person claim to have inserted the Borth claim into Wikipedia as a joke. A look into the history shows that at the time of the Guardian article, that claim was already here with a source listed simply as Q Magazine, July 2006. While I don't have a copy of that to hand, a search of Google Images does at least reveal the cover. You would think that in 2006 any magazine interviewing Morrissey would advertise that fact on the cover. In particular, I can't imagine Q facing a decision to shortlist a bunch of interviewees and not include Morrissey. While I can't vouch for its completeness, this claimed "interview archive" doesn't include it. A Google search for morrissey q magazine "july 2006" doesn't return anything useful. I can't help but think that the Grauniad source, which repeats the claim second-hand, is a case of a journalist believing everything they read on Wikipedia and being taken in by it. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Aberystwyth in the late 90s and certainly heard that Borth was the inspiration for the song. I am also not convinced that an interview with Morresy in the mid 00s would be cover worthy, even for Q magazine. We cant be sure it wasn't an aside as part of another article either? I'm going with the assumption of good faith and reverting it back to the Guardian link. There is also a lot of other evidence other than the Guardian link over the internet pointing at Borth as the inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.164.189 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ebay seller who holds a copy has posted a copy of the contents pages with their listing here (images mirrored here). No sign of him anywhere. The featured interview is James Blunt, and their making-of feature is World in Motion. I'm calling this as a definite hoax now unless someone can provide some solid evidence to the contrary (page number and photograph of text ought to do it). 86.3.110.34 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is a hoax. I was informed of this fact when I lived in Borth in the late 90s. Hearsay from work does not count as encyclopedic, or a reason to take well sourced information out of Wikipedia. Magazines have hundreds of articles in the which are not covered on the front page. If you do a quick google you can see dozens of pages which reference this fact. It may not have been an interview with Morresy it may have just been referencing him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.199.155 (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The story has been repeated many times now, so there are no shortage of reliable sources. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that the rumour actually did originate on Wikipedia and has been unwittingly repeated by the Guardian and other sources. A source from before 4 July 2010, when this claim was added to the article, would go a long way towards demonstrating that the Borth inspiration didn't originate on Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how suddenly in response to this we've had people come out and say (specifically) that they lived in the area and heard the story while also making nebulous references to Wikipedia policy. Some less patient souls might note that neither user has much of an edit history and suggest that it was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the hoax. The ideal scenario would be for someone to produce the actual interview in which he reveals this inspiration, but certainly anything that predates the insertion would be a start. I've taken it back out for now, and given that I apparently was not the first person to suspect a hoax, I'd suggest that it doesn't go back in until someone can provide some solid proof that it's not a hoax. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everyday Is Like Sunday. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210214332/http://motorcycleaupairboy.com:80/mozdisc1/everyday.htm to http://motorcycleaupairboy.com/mozdisc1/everyday.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]