Talk:Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)

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

Pop music

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discussing Move

Okay, before anyone brings it up, I know that Wikipedia is not censored. That's not actually why I'm proposing the move. I came to this page after handling an edit request at Enrique Iglesias, so I'll say that I'm not familiar with this song. But, while researching that page, I looked at a bunch of the references for this page. It appears to me that, according to those references, "Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)" is actually the much more common title. Each of the charts that I checked (I looked at Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, and the US before stopping) list the "clean" version. I randomly spot checked a number of other references, including the ones to enriqueiglesias.com, and they all either use "Tonight" or "Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)." Since WP:TITLE says that articles should receive the title most commonly used in reliable sources, it seems to me that this article's main title should be "Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)." We would, of course, still mention the explicit name "Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You)" as appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comments? I'm going to do the move in about 2 more days unless I hear a reason not to. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been more than a week since I proposed the move; no one has commented, I can only presume that it is acceptable. I'm going to go ahead with the move now per our policy on WP:Article titles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The title on the CD cover says I'm Fucking You, and the I'm Loving You is the daytime radio airplay version of the song. I say change the title back to Tonight (I'm Fucking You). Wikipedia doesn't know modesty or extravagance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.212.158 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALBUM

Could someone please check why this has been listed on being on his latest CD? It is not. The ONLY version of this song regardless of clean or the swear version is only available on the French Edition. It is not available on ANY copy of the album. At best it should be listed as a bonus track on the French Edition. Please check the tracking listing on the CD and you will see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.0.194 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TITLE

the page Fuck You! is titeled Fuck You! even though the cleaner more widely known version is Forget you but Lets get Retarded's title is Lets get it started even though the oridginal version was Lets get retarded I looked around and most songs go by the oridginal name rather than the radio edit here on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.170.19 (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You) → Tonight (I'm Lovin' You) – Two versions of this single were released – an explicit version, "Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You)", and a censored version, "Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)". Of course, Wikipedia is not censored, but this RM is based on WP:COMMONNAME – whether for obscenity laws or otherwise, "Lovin'" returns more Google results than "Fuckin'" (9.7 million for "tonight i'm lovin you" vs. less than 0.2 million, when searching for "tonight i'm f kin you" to include sources which censor the title), is the title it was known as when it charted on Billboard, and according to Iglesias' iTunes page, sold more than "Fuckin'". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC) –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe I should not compare this to Short Dick Man, nowadays a lesser known song, and Let's Get It Started. Google doesn't answer commonality; "Wikipedia" should have been excluded. Of course, they are same results, but lyrics from third-party websites are included. The ones that count are cover arts, like this and that. But if you want secondary sources, try Google Books. Some, like Billboard, use "Lovin"; some others use "f--kin". We got a deeply divided usage per WP:NCUE. But I prefer "f--kin", even though this song is not prominent right now. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, sources are divided. But the preference for "Lovin'", as noted in the listing, stems from the fact that it is more popular than "Fuckin'" and is the version that charted as a single (and thus became prominent). Books may be divided, but web sources overwhelmingly prefer "Lovin'". –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web pages come and go. I hope the books do not go the Fahrenheit 451 or Nazi way; either is scary. George Ho (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As a formal and respected reference work, Wikipedia should lean to the sanitised version, given that it is a highly viable option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, without regard for any offensiveness of the word "Fuck." If the "Fuck" version was the most common name referenced in reliable sources, I would support that name. Yes, I realize that the reason periodicals such as Billboard use the "Loving" version is probably an aversion to the word "Fuck"; but that's beside the point, the point is that they do.

By the way, it was moved to the "Loving" version before, after a respectful discussion and comment period, as seen above, and appears to have been unilaterally moved back without discussion. Such a move-back really should have been proposed at WP:RM instead. TJRC (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. TJRC has crystallized my thoughts entirely. Not only have print sources been the censored version, but probably, for an aural tradition, only the censored version was played on the radio! Therefore the common name must be the censored version. This is not the same as sensoring WP, which is a totally different animal altogether.

I would have been happy to let this discussion to run without my input, but I think it is important to quash all further moves with a definitive support for the title. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:13, 13 August 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tonight (I'm Lovin' You). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tonight (I'm Lovin' You). 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: 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) 17:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2017

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: Not moved. There is no consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight (I'm Lovin' You) → Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You) – Yes, I realize that the title is inappropriate, but I feel as if WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here. The main reason I say that is because it's kind of obvious that "Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)" will seem to be used more because it is how it is on the radio. The official version is called "Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You)" and that will not change. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:F4A6:F4C1:BBA9:214B (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both are official. Peter James (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stick with print sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia is not censored and Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You) seems to be the correct name of the non-radio edit version. AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We're not censored, true, but neither do we favour vulgar language, see my !vote below. And you have given no other reason to favour the non-radio edit version. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the previous RM. It is true that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored, but that doesn't give us an excuse to disregard WP:COMMONNAME when "Lovin'" is more commonly used than "Fuckin'". No prejudice in mentioning "Fuckin'" as the official title before "Lovin'" in opening sentence, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another example exists with Fuck You (CeeLo Green song).Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Another example of what? Nobody is suggesting that we censor this name, see my !vote below. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. WP:COMMONNAME points to "Lovin'". ONR (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per AusLondonder. 74.105.204.67 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And they have given no valid rationale for their !vote, see my comment above and !vote below. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME always trumps WP:OFFICIALNAME. Sometimes the two coincide, but not in this case - reliable sources use the Lovin' version. — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Language some see as dirty helps to sell some records. Clean language helps them to get airplay. We don't adopt either here for their own sake, we just go with the sources, and in this case the clean version is the better known from evidence above. Both are covered by this one article, so the article name is the clean one. That's not censorship. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (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.