Talk:Let Me Entertain You (Robbie Williams song)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robbie Williams - Let Me Entertain You - CD single cover.jpg

Image:Robbie Williams - Let Me Entertain You - CD single cover.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 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Letmeentertainyou1.jpg

Image:Letmeentertainyou1.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 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss or Queen

He is not necessarily dressed as a member of Kiss. He wears a catsuit which was worn by many glam rock stars most notably Freddie Mercury and Marc Bolan long before Kiss. He also wears white face make up which Freddie and Marc often donned.

The only distignuishing feature which would suggest Kiss would be the eye make up but it is probably POV to suggest that Robbie Williams is dressed as a member of Kiss. With the name being the same as Queen's hard rock/ glam hit it is more likely a tribute to all glam stars rather than just Kiss.

Thoughts?

Pete Robinson. 24th June 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.235.230 (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'mon cher'

I have deleted this line: "Either intentionally or not, through the lyrics the singer addresses the listener as 'mon cher', which is French for 'my dear' when speaking to a male." I don't see that it has any relevance. Also, if I remember correctly from learning French in school, 'mon' is used not only when speaking to a male, but also when talking to a group of people of mixed gender. Smeagolisgood (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to "Sympathy for the Devil" by The Rolling Stones

I removed this passage from the article: "The chord structure (F, Ab/F, Bb/F, F) and in particular the piano riff is almost identical to the Rolling Stones' song "Sympathy for the Devil", the difference mainly being in tempo. "

The chords in Sympathy for the Devil are (E, D, A, E) or occasionally (E, D, A/C#, E).

If I am not mistaken, the chords are in roman numeral analysis notation Let Me Entertain You: I, bIII/I, IV/I, I and Sympathy for the Devil: I, bVII, IV(/VI), I

The piano riffs are also not rhythmically similar. mtreinik (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

The following is a closed 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: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Even though this song isn't Robbie's biggest hit, it's quite clearly more notable than all the other songs, the TV episode and both of the short-lived TV shows Unreal7 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "it's quite clearly more notable than all the other songs" - why is it clearly more notable than a Stephen Sondheim song, a Freddy Mercury song etc? It's quite clearly not as notable as most of these even among songs. And then the four TV shows have dozens of article mentions. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see below for evidence of significance and usage for this song over the others, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dohn joe (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The nom found a good one. Here are the November viewing stats for the articles with this title:

So this article got 70% of all the "Let Me Entertain You" views last month - including the disambiguation page, which covers even the uses without articles. That makes this the clear primarytopic by usage. And since these are all recent popular culture usages, there is no long-term significance to worry about. Clear primarytopic by any definition. Dohn joe (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does this have to be said: Page Views Are Not Our Criteria - see the rest of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none, hopefully, considering that usage is one of the two principal criteria listed at wp:primarytopic, and that pageviews is listed as one of the principal ways to determine usage. You do agree that usage is one of the principal criteria, correct? Dohn joe (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:In ictu oculi: you do agree that usage is one of the principal criteria, correct? Dohn joe (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the old Gypsy Rose Lee burlesque/cabaret routine (Natalie Wood)(Tina Fey)(Gypsy Rose Lee)(Cher) would be the old standby song and act that would be the historic topic, outside of the WP:RECENTISM of Robbie Williams. The burlesque song is also a standard in that industry [1] -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Gypsy" song is only 35 years older than the Robbie Williams song. The Robbie Williams song has been around nearly an entire generation - 17 years - and is more than ten times more popular than any other topic here. It was found in a survey by Mind to be one of the top three songs for happiness. It's been called arguably one of the most well-known songs of the 1990s. It was used as the title of a best-selling biography of Williams. It's got staying power and is where most of our readers have shown they want to go. Why not make it easier for them to get there? Dohn joe (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44:: any thoughts on the long-term significance of the Williams song? Shouldn't that, plus the usage, push this into primarytopic territory? Dohn joe (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the long term significance pushes for the burlesque/cabaret subject. It is a common and stereotypical song and easily associated with its topic matter, burlesque/cabaret. It is probably a standard tune for that industry. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Sondheim song is probably more significant overall, but that the Williams song is significant enough that that, plus usage, pushes it into primarytopic, that's all. Dohn joe (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only at WP is there a headlong rush to remove the artist's name from the song title, everywhere else understands that in common parlance the two are a composite title. Is it no longer a Robbie Williams song? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a "composite title?" It is a title, with disambiguation. Here on WP, we only disambiguate when necessary, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SONGDAB. Could you explain your !oppose based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, please? Dohn joe (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – this is a title that has been used repeatedly for six decades by a large number of works of enduring historical notability. There is no particular indication of enduring historical importance for the Robbie Williams song. It seems to be more popular at the moment merely because it is more recent than some of the others. The uses seem to generally be derivative of the song from the Sondheim musical, which is a landmark classic. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that 17 years is enough time for recentism to have died down? Especially since about half of the entries on the dab are more recent than the Williams song (7 are older, 5 are younger). And what about the cites I gave above for its particular historical importance? Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn joe, you have all questions of every contributor to the RM all basically repeatedly asking everyone the same question. The answer to the question is this: How many readers looking for the Robbie Williams song will not know that it is a song by Robbie Williams? Therein is your answer as to why WP:NCM requires multiple song articles have artist names. A song (at least post the Tin-pan Alley era), as has been said many times before is not a person or a city or even a film where notability is inherent, but for most modern songs is derived from and inherently linked with the artist. If this had multiple covers you might have a case. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the other editors had granted you their proxy in answering questions addressed to them. Dohn joe (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made the same pageviews point under my comment too. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case the question comes up again in the future, until further notice I am comfortable with the notion that, in my absence, IIO has the authority to respond as my proxy in Wikipedia Talk page discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BarrelProof, thanks I wasn't actually thinking of answering as anyone's proxy seeing as there are two outstanding questions to me above (WP:BLUDGEON?) but for the record, if you see any reader-confusing RM proposals over the Xmas period feel please fully confident to answer on my behalf. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Robbie Williams song has nowhere near the historical importance and widespread influence of the Sondheim musical song. The 1959 song was highly notable in itself, and has been covered or reinterpreted by many notable artists since then – a fact that remains true regardless of whether it has a separate article or not and regardless of the fact that, in this case, the article is only 6 months old and may not have attracted a lot of attention so far. The only reason that so many works have this title is that there is a highly influential older work with this title. If there's a primary topic, it's that one – recent page views nothwithstanding. If not for the prior work, Williams would not have a made a semi-notable pop song with that title. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - I suppose we agree to disagree here. Dohn joe (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Google results don't show a significant difference in results. "Let Me Entertain You" williams -wikipedia -gypsy has 196 results and "Let Me Entertain You" gypsy -wikipedia -williams has 169 results after Google filtered out "entries very similar" to those already displayed. In Books, "Let Me Entertain You" williams has 1610 results and "Let Me Entertain You" gypsy has 1440. That's not significant enough to declare a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the pageviews don't matter? Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just one factor, not determinative. older ≠ wiser 16:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if the one factor - Google Books results - is fairly even (still in Williams's favor), and the other - usage by our readers - is dramatically in favor of Williams, why wouldn't that mean that both factors combine here for primarytopic? Dohn joe (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I have to go with gut feeling as well. For me the phase immediately evokes the various renditions associated with Gypsy. I'm not sure I'd ever even heard of the Robbie Williams song prior to this discussion. older ≠ wiser 16:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd have been able to identify either of these songs before this RM. But titles shouldn't be based on what any given editor or group of editors feels should be the right title. Which is why I appreciate your using Google Books results above. But when we also have clear evidence that our own readers are seeking an article more than 10:1 over any other article with that title, and much more than all the others combined, for me, that overrides any "gut feeling" that I might have. Dohn joe (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have conflicting evidence, which IMO should in most cases result in a disambiguation page unless there is a really good reason not to. My gut feeling was little more than a tie-breaker in considering whether the evidence was sufficient for a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 17:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not to belabor the point, but what is the conflicting evidence? Don't all the results come back in favor of the Williams song, just to different degrees? Dohn joe (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are belaboring the point, I'll try make more explicit what the books results actually show (which was more of an unstated hunch when I wrote previously). Refining the searches a bit to exclude the pure crap "books" that are nothing but reproductions of wikipedia articles and focusing more specifically on the name "Robbie Williams" rather than the more generic "williams" (e.g., the David Brown autobiography was published by in the U.S. by William Morrow), "Let Me Entertain You" "robbie williams" -wikipedia has 505 results and "Let Me Entertain You" gypsy -wikipedia -"Robbie Williams" has 1410 results. So no, I see the long-term significance criteria as favoring the Gypsy song. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a different kettle of fish. That does comport more with my research as well. I still think that looking at usage first is a better way to get our readers where they're trying to go, but that's a difference in philosophy. Thanks for bearing with me. Dohn joe (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose – the page view count to me is not enough to be determinative and is largely explained by it still being very current; it may be 17 years old but Robbie Williams is still performing and it's very much part of his act, as the article makes clear.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.