Talk:Here I Go Again

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Here I Go Again article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Rock music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Album (1987) version and Radio Mix version

On the 'Different Recorded Versions', it's stated that the radio edit ( the one with Dann Huff on guitars and Denny Carmassi on drums ) year was 1989.I did some survey and found out there's only 1987 date.[1][2].Anybody knows more about this?

Metal Michelle 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Canadian 45 (vinyl single), and it's the Radio Mix, with Huff on guitar, and it is the year 1987, and is identical to the version on the 1994 CD, Greatest Hits. The article says that this song was re-recorded in 1994 for the Greatest Hits album, which is not true. The CD simply has the 1987 radio version (also called US Mix).

Rayvee (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I purchased the US 45 (vinyl single) in the fall of 1987, and it is the "radio" version with Huff and Carmassi. I wish radio would play the "radio" version every once in a while.

DMarshall 20:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.200.97 (talk) [reply]

In The UK, the '1987' version appeared on the B side of the Still of the Night 12" single. The 'Radio Edit' was added to the '1987' vinyl ablum after the song became a hit in the US - it wasn't on the original and the lyrics are on the 'back' of the liner bag. Davef68 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One version has a very distinctive keyboard fill after the first ""Here I go again on my own"" in each chorus that is absent from more frequently played version(s) - I find it very jarring! As my original memory of the song is pre-1987 am I right in guessing its the Jon Lord version that has this fill? Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations do play the 1987 version, however, it appears only adult contemporary stations play it, and it's not often that they do. This follows a recent trend of adult contemporary stations adding in songs from the glam metal era that did not chart on the AC chart. Some of the songs added include Pour Some Sugar on Me by Def Leppard among others. Bon Jovi makes sense since a lot of their post-1980's stuff has charted on the AC chart (practically every album since since These Days had at least one AC hit), even though most of their 1980's hits did not.Moline1 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"on the hood of Whitesnake lead singer David Coverdale's Jaguar"?

Shouldn't that be "bonnet", given that Whitesnake are a British band? "Hood" in UK English only means the roof of a convertible. 86.146.232.235 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, but then "hobo" is an American term as well, British would say "tramp" so, why not eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.122.200 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitesnake IS a British band, not are. 18:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.18.173.40 (talk)

British English treats collective nouns as plural. "Whitesnake are" is correct. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the song is about lonliness, so why...

is it worth noting that the song is about lonliness, while the music video has dave showing off his girlfriend every 10 seconds?

No. :) Thedarxide (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of lyrics

The article mentions that the lyrics were changed slightly, and gives the original. But doesn't state what they were changed to. This sort of leaves things hanging a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.122.200 (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wsaints.jpg

Image:Wsaints.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 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 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wsaints.jpg

Image:Wsaints.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) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Here I Go Again. 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/20110721125210/http://irishcharts.ie/search/placement to http://irishcharts.ie/search/placement

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: 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) 11:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adult contemporary

I've noticed that many adult contemporary stations, especially the ones owned by iheart radio play this song often, even though it was Is This Love that charted on the AC chart, and not this one. I wonder if the 1987 version has an AC feel to it and that's why they play it. They also do it with other glam metal acts such as Def Leppard and Pour Some Sugar On Me. Bon Jovi makes complete sense since a lot of their material starting with These Days had at least one adult contemporary hit. All I can figure with Here I Go Again and Pour Some Sugar On Me is that they were popular enough for AC stations to add them, but not popular enough to dent the chart. That alone could warrant a chart called the Bubbling Under Adult Contemporary chart where songs that weren't popular enough to chart on the main chart, but get airplay anyways, go to chart, similar to the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart. Those two songs definitely would meet the requirements of such a chart if it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moline1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast discussion of song

ThunderHobo has repeatedly added mention of a discussion of this song's lyrics on a podcast, sourced only to that podcast itself (hosted on Wordpress). I don't agree that the podcast's episode is significant enough to include. The podcast itself is just three KISS fans talking about songs, and there is no independent coverage that gives any weight to their opinions. I cannot see any reason to include mention of their episode in this article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast in question has produced over 430 episodes during 8 years online, has thousands of listeners, and has had several notable guests including Chris Jericho, Bruce Kulick, Joey Cassata, and others. ThunderHobo (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that makes them reliable experts nor does it mean their opinions have any place in an encyclopedia article. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES to learn about how Wikipedia views various types of sources. Schazjmd (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Enquirer has larger numbers, but still a very unreliable source. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion is irrelevant. It is fact that there was a podcast episode completely dedicated to the song. That is just as much fact as "The song was used in the climax of romantic comedy film Man Up (2015)." It happened. Doesn't make Man Up necessarily a good movie. The song was in it. Hard stop. We all know that this is just an attempt to further cancel hobo subculture. Perhaps it deserves its own section for "References in Popular Culture"... ThunderHobo (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the song in the film Man Up was noted by an independent, reliable source. Has any independent, reliable source mentioned the podcast? Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with User:Schazjmd here. There's no indication the podcast is notable. If ThunderHobo believes it is notable, perhaps they should attempt to create an article for it so it can be judged. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]