# Talk:Baby, Please Don't Go

Terry Foote has been trying to add that Them's version of the song appeared in a movie, at first without a reference and then with a ref that doesn't mention Them and misidentifies the song title.  
WP:TRIVIA includes "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information ... Trivia sections should be avoided ... As articles grow, however, editors encountering such lists may feel encouraged to add to them indiscriminately, and these lists may then end up becoming trivia magnets which are increasingly disorganized, unwieldy, and difficult to read" (emphasis in original). WP:POPCULTURE adds that such content "should be verifiable and their sources should establish their significance" (emphasis added).  Neither the added material or the ref notes any significance of the song's appearance in the movie or that is in anyway important or noteworthy, only that it exists.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE expands the idea:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
The song may appear in several movies, TV shows, commercials, video games, etc.  However, to include these in an article requires that reliable sources discuss their appearance as significant or memorable in some way to make it noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia.  If the sources merely confirm its existence in these other media, it is not important and is trivia.
The editor is also trying to add a cover version that does not meet WP:SONGCOVER: there is no evidence that Petty's version 1) "is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" (as opposed to a trivial mention, or 2) "meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS".
Additionally, the linked ref is a youtube video that does not note that it is copyright compliant, which is contrary to WP:ELNEVER.
The editor may benefit from a review of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: He was bold, I reverted, but instead of discussing, he continues to revert.  This has the look of a WP:EDITWAR. —Ojorojo (talk)

I agree.  The material should not be included, and the editor should not engage in edit warring.  I will revert, and warn the editor concerned.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
So does these articles have indiscriminate trivia, or do all the various cover versions, and what-have-you, are the more encyclopedic?  [1] [2][3][4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].  Personally, I think the original reverter, what's his name, just didn't like my edit, and someone else has come along to provide the illusion of support because you're friends - that's what I think.  So, help me understand how I'm wrong here, and you will both have done a good thing.    Terry Foote (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
If those articles contain trivial material, you should remove it.  But just because other articles are poor, there is no need to make this one equally poor.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Terry Foote: Maybe you realize by now that attempting to follow poor practices as seen in other articles has no support.  If you wish to dispute the established policies and guidelines linked above, address your concerns on those talk pages.  The attitude doesn't help your position.[14]  —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I get it. You won, I'll stop edit-warring.  However, you could've offered something constructive on what would've made what I had to offer more acceptable. It's not irrelevant that this song has appeared on movie soundtracks.  I still don't agree that the other articles I listed have "poor" practices, and also believe what constitutes poor is a matter of opinion rather than objective fact, but I also respect the fact that you're doing the right thing by keeping Wikipedia from being a garbage dump of random, disconnected flotsam.  I don't have the time or patience to make my case, which I will lose anyway because I don't have the time or patience to find a cadre of friends who have the time and patience to argue with me, so I'll stop being a sphincter and back down.  I still refer to Wikipedia to read lists of different versions of songs I like.  Whoever is the sentinel of the Carry On Wayward Son article really should have on there that Panic at the Disco has a great version, but I suppose that would be considered poor practice as well, for some reason.  BTW, did you get the chance to listen to Tom Petty's version of Baby, Please Don't Go - it's really quite good, with an amusing story about a crazy girlfriend he once had whom he sent packing on a train to New Orleeeeeens.  Take it easy, Terry Foote (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not about "winning".  You would go a lot further on WP if you familiarized yourself with some basic guidelines: how to link other WP articles, how to add a citation, song titles are in "quotes", album titles are italicized, most youtube links violate copyrights, etc.  This article is rated as a Good article, which means it has been through a review process and meets certain standards.  To maintain their status, subsequent edits to GAs (and WP:FAs) should also meet the standards.
If you're looking for lists of cover versions, AllMusic[15] or Discogs[16] are good sources.  You can even add your own at Secondhandsongs.com[17] and not have to worry about those pesky references.
—Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, as long as we're talking about me here, my time and ambitions are much more involved brick-and-mortar world. Like I said, I don't have the patience to read all these rules.  It's a very well established fact that Wikipedia has many rules, many of them contradictory.  Mostly on WP, I undo the edits of paid editors, something that especially offends me.  I like to add photos too.  I'm as far on Wikipedia as I have the time and patience for, and IMO, I've personally done enough for the project long ago.  Obviously, I was wrong about you and your intentions, and for that I owe you an apology. Now, a question: Bob Dylan did a version of this song in the early 60s that appeared on the The Minnesota Tapes - how can this be included in the article without it seeming like random trivia?  I think Bob Dylan doing this song is at least as noteworthy as AC/DC or Aerosmith.  Oh, and thanks for the suggestions of the other sites, but I like Wikipedia.  As a music lover of almost all genres, I'd like to contribute more than I do and not make crap edits.  Terry Foote (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that, very often, lists of cover versions in articles are expanded to grotesque lengths because enthusiastic editors add their own favourite versions, often by obscure bands or otherwise lacking any particular notability.  To prevent that, we have guidelines on what and should not be included in such lists or sections, which are maintained more strictly at articles like this one which are regarded as good quality or better.  Essentially, if Dylan's version of the song has been reported independently elsewhere, in reliable sources, as worthy of note, it could perhaps be mentioned briefly in the article.  Otherwise, we should not mention it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Terry, take another look at your original edit:
"Them's version of this song appeared on the soundtrack of the film Wild_at_Heart directed by David Lynch."
It's a paragraph containing a single sentence, tacked on at the end of the section about Them's version. It provides no context – the movie article has plenty of references: during what scene does the song appear, how does it reflect/enhance the story line, why choose Them's version over all the rest, etc.?  Unlike nearly every sentence in the article, it doesn't have a reference. [[Wild_at_Heart]] is a disambiguation page and why use the "_" ?  With minimal effort, you could see the correct link is [[Wild at Heart (film)|Wild at Heart]] and should be italicized.  Sorry, but this has all the appearance of a "crap edit" hastily dropped into an article.
Google book searches only confirm that Dylan[18] and Petty[19] recorded it. So did dozens of other artists, but what can be written about them?  Without any other info, it's just name dropping.  As noted above, there are other sites for lists – one does not need to read an encyclopedia article for a bunch of names.
—Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, admittedly, this is exactly what happened - I made a hasty edit, but mistakenly thought that what I put in the article was enough.  I more often than not edit at work and only have brief snippets of time here and there.  The song itself is actually perfect for the movie and adds to the context because some of the activity goes on in New Orleeeeens. However, all that about how the song is perfect for the movie is only my opinion.  As for Tom Petty's version, IMO it's brilliant, especially the story he tells, but then again that's just my opinion, and I'm sure that the video someone took at a show is indeed a copyright violation, so yeah, I shouldn't have included this.  Perhaps my enthusiasm to contribute *something* overtakes my better judgment.  I dilemma I find is that say like a movie such as Wild at Heart, it came out in 1990, long before the internet reached the mainstream, so you can't find anything online about the music for the soundtrack.  Personally, I find it interesting the history of this song, and its deep cultural impact, including its appearance on the soundtrack of a film that won a Palm D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.  That's noteworthy, right?  So, how to not make a rule violating or crap edit with the information available, that's the question.  Fortunately, today I don't have to work, so I have a lot more free time to learn some things.  Thanks everyone for your help. Terry Foote (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sensing that everyone's feeling like we've beaten this dead horse enough, but just consider this if you're still interested - have a look at the "In Popular Culture" section of Gimme Shelter - a very please to the eye list of soundtrack appearances of this song.  As I've said, I personally like these lists, and don't think they detract from an article's worth.  Would this be acceptable, or would it violate current thinking in what constitutes a good article? Terry Foote (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! A very interesting version is T-Bone Walker's Don't Go Back To New Orleans. Which effectively re-writes it.
Please check out somebody and give a mention. All the
variant versions seem to have different writer credits on the cds I have. Cheers 86.15.128.219 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see below. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Budgie did a really good version of it on their Never Turn Your Back on a Friend album which contained Breadfan, a song often covered by Metallica. 205.172.134.232 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see below. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

For this article to be complete it needs to mention the versions recorded by The Amboy Dukes (1967) and Ted Nugent as a solo artist (1977). Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Amboy Dukes is mentioned in the song's Blues Hall of Fame announcement (now linked), but Nugent isn't.  To meet WP:SONGCOVER, "Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles."  WP is supposed to provide encyclopedic content, otherwise articles could become long lists of often trivial information. Websites, such as Secondhandsongs.com (that lists 171 versions[20]), are much better choices for this type of info. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but it does beg the question, who decided that Van Morrison, AC/DC, and Aerosmith rated so much screen space and Amboy Dukes/Nugent does not? As it is, the inclusion of those three entries make this page a long list of trivial information. What makes one more "important" than another? Nugent has recorded several versions of this song and almost always has it in his live set list. We're talking a 50+ year career that's still going strong, unlike some of the other "important" artists here. Just shows the hypocritical, judgemental, and whimsical nature of the WP "rules". One kind find a WP rule to support anything. Thanks for letting me vent. Have a nice day. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The renditions by Them (Morrison) reached UK #10, AC/DC Australia #10, Aerosmith US Mainstream #7.  By contrast, Amboy Dukes "bubbled under" at #106 and Nugent never charted.  Given the song's popularity, I'm sure that there are other artists that have playing it for years (Ten Years After got a lot of mileage out of including a bit in "I'm Going Home").  But since you feel that it is vital, I expanded Janovitz' quote.  Now both are included. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's an article about the song from Classic Rock: https://www.loudersound.com/features/cuttin-heads-baby-please-don-t-go
And here's a blog entry on the site Early Blues: https://www.earlyblues.com/BabyPleaseDont.htm
Best, Jules TH 16 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"Baby, Please Don't Go" has been recorded by dozens of artists over the years (a popular website lists 191 versions).[21] However, very few have reliable sources that discuss them as being noteworthy. This is necessary to prevent the article from being overwhelmed with long lists of unimportant covers (see WP:SONGCOVER). AllMusic doesn't mention Budgie's version in its band bio or Never Turn Your Back on a Friend album review. Without reliable sources, there is nothing to add to the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)