Jump to content

Talk:I Can See for Miles

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

Kilometres?

[edit]

Why would we say:

"Not only was it recorded in separate sessions, it was recorded in a geographic range stretching thousands of kilometres."

...especially, when the song is called I Can See for Miles?

Yeah... I know metric and the Who being from England, but still; they don't sing "I can see for kilometers and kilometers..." --Restecp 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In my cleanup of the writing, this phrase got eliminated anyway. Just a matter of phrasing it more succinctly -- it's a nice conceit to note that the recording took place over literal "miles" but unnecessary to the actual entry. They didn't compose the lyrics of the song around the concept of its actual production, after all. StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

[edit]

I did some cleanup on the writing of this article, but none of its assertions have been sourced. It would be great if the original writer (or anyone else) could provide some sources for it.... StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-note solo

[edit]

The solo is notable for consisting of a single repeated note. See reference here [1]. In fact, that source looks good for other details about the song. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

video Miles and Miles

[edit]

Who is the man whose face is shown three times in the video Miles and Miles?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.35.213 (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Can See for Miles. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Can See for Miles. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of songs in commercials

[edit]

If the retail apocalypse, Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist, why do we need to deal with songs in commercials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyFinke2019 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your justification for the edits you've been making, you probably should reconsider your approach. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see that you, CodyFinke2019 are willing to enter into discussion about the subject of the encyclopedia's coverage of songs being used in advertising; please do not continue to alter content related to the discussion while it is ongoing. Since you have indicated by your recent contributions a desire to remove all such content, on multiple pages, it could be considered best for the project if all the interested editors were invited to the discussion, and that the content of all the relevant pages are considered. To that end, I will mention Xanzzibar, Jack90s15, Promethean, Dawnseeker2000, LightandDark2000, Hotcop2, Arjayay, CLCStudent, TheDoDahMan and Bishonen who have all been involved with reverting you recent crusade, and hope that we can all work together to reach consensus on how songs used in advertising should be covered in all relevant cases. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My reversion was purely WP:RCP - I personally have no interest in the topic matter, aside from ensuring that the unexplained removals of content and edit warring came to an end. Great to see User talk:CodyFinke2019 engaging in dialogue and explaining why he wants to remove the content in question. Promethean (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: same with me I look though the recent changes and see if anything is removed randomly like this example — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 23:08, June 23, 2019 (UTC)
My two cents: Whether or not to include mention of an advert should be similar to WP:SONGCOVER. Just because an advert exists (or use of a tune in Guitar Hero 4) does not make it notable. Of course, some get dependable coverage and are. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Doctorhawkes; we must be careful to not pad out articles with irrelevant trivia. WP:NOTEWORTHY states [...] notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles [...] whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article [...] is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. I would say that WP:POPCULTURE and WP:FANCRUFT are the most relevant guidelines or policies, but sadly they are neither (being essays). On this specific point of this possibly complex discussion, I am of the opinion that accepting only properly sourced claims is a no-brainer. The lavish use of {{Citation needed}} with a sensible pause for them to potentially garner responses should be employed in favour of immediate content removal. Beyond that, I suppose we should try to reach agreement on what degree of public awareness of an advertising campaign (in its time or since) need be established for it to be considered a noteworthy campaign and whether the noteworthiness of the use of the song in the campaign is itself required. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As with some of the others editors, I don't have much interest in the subject matter at hand. That said, I concur with Doctorhawkes and Fred Gandt - a lot of the commercials probably aren't noteworthy in their use of a particular song. I don't know enough about the industry to suggest guidelines for notability, but I feel pretty certain that the existence of a couple of niche humor websites doesn't make all of them non-notable. --Xanzzibar (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this is a subject being debated on Wiki. Whether anyone likes, loves, is indifferent to or despises the fact that songs are used in commercials, they are. On the page that I am monitoring, the Village People song "Macho Man," the lyric was turned into "Nacho Man" for a television commercial and mentioned as such. I don't see the harm (and this is objective as I'm not fond of nachos personally). I suppose if yet another policy is going to be instituted, so be it. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about new policies so much as applying the usual thresholds for notability to ward off cruft. Something like "Nacho Man" is probably notable given the commercial's focus on the song and the cover's parodical nature, whereas two bars of "Such Great Heights" in the background of a car commercial probably isn't. --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation Xanzzibar; the prominence/importance of the songs' role in the campaign is definitely an important factor to consider. However, the cutoff between unacceptably trivial and not will be arbitrary, and up to us to decide. If licence by the IP owner was required for the use of the song, can we assume that the song was featured prominently enough for the music industry to consider it a feature; I wonder, since at some point we may run into original research issues if we cannot definitively establish by reference how much the relevant song was featured, but we may be able to trace licences/attribution. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Hotcop2: The subject is being debated with the aim of establishing consensus regarding whether or not we should feature details of songs' use in advertising on their respective pages, and if so, what degree of notability is considered suitable for each mention. We are doing this because of a recent flurry of edit-warring over exactly that type of content, and there are only two viable options for dealing with disputed content; we can either disruptively continue warring until users are blocked, or discuss the dispute, reach consensus, edit accordingly and move on. I and all our policies and guidelines prefer the latter approach. Bear in mind, that by definition, an edit war is not progressive; the page is changed back and forth ad-infinitum with no substantive difference, which I hope you'll agree, is unhelpful.
We are not discussing whether songs are used in advertising since no reasonable editor could argue against that fact. This discussion concerns how we respond to that fact.
I understand your comment I don't see the harm (considering its context) to mean that you are in favour of keeping content about songs' use in advertising on their respective pages. Assuming my understanding is correct (please correct me if I am wrong); do you have any preferences regarding the acceptable degree of notability of the advertising campaign and the songs use in it? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: With the recent indefinite blocking of user CodyFinke2019, the actions of whom being the reason this discussion began, we have a situation that equates to the cause for the discussion being addressed, but the subject remains. I noted that WikiProject Songs doesn't mention any standard/consensus/agreed handling of any kind of trivia in song articles beyond "Write a description of the song. Write the basics first (this is often the information contained in the infobox). Then write about the music and lyrics, its influences and its effect on culture (with citations, of course)" in Article content -> Main body section. There's no mention of how to handle use in movies, their soundtracks, on television or in advertising/commercials. I guess its up to us to figure it out for ourselves. We could sing a round of "ding dong the witch is dead", walk away and carry on as we were, or take this opportunity to continue working toward a consensus view — perhaps something that should be encouraged into WikiProject songs' guidence for curation of quality, standardized content. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their guidance on covers and notability is probably relevant. Regardless, it's probably a discussion best had at the wikiproject's page. They know the material better, and a broader consensus is preferable. --Xanzzibar (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have started a discussion, calling back to this one and suggesting it be continued, in agreement with Xanzzibar, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Use of songs in advertising, movies, television etc. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Can_See_for_Miles&oldid=1207682952"