Talk:Yesterday (song)

message: Hi there,
I see in the archive that someone asked if it could be interesting to list the movies in which the song is played, but got no reply. I was once told of a (1970's?) film where the character is obsessed with the song and keeps playing it over and over, but i never heard of any other mention of such a film. Anyone ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Anna (Go to Him) Al Bundy, Married With Children, 1991?  MBG02 (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yesterday in  films?, cont'd 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Yesterday (Beatles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141012090104/http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/paul-mccartney-sings-scrambled-eggs-the-original-yesterday-12910/1264343/ to http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/Paul-McCartney-sings-Scrambled-Eggs-the-original-Yesterday-12910/1264343
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Yesterday (Beatles song). 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/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yesterday (Beatles song). 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/20120207180137/http://www.music.us/billboardmagazine.htm to http://www.music.us/billboardmagazine.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yesterday (Beatles song). 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/20160101163252/http://www.didyouwatchit.com/bbc4/bbc4-the-worlds-richest-songs/ to http://www.didyouwatchit.com/bbc4/bbc4-the-worlds-richest-songs/
*Added  tag to https://www.youtab.me/music/2FjjGzLZiDB/the-beatles/yesterday
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Isn't the "scrambled eggs" paragraph repetitive and redundant? It explains that McCartney asked around about the melody, became confident it was his, and wrote the nonsense lyrics. Then it goes on to say that McCartney asked around about the melody, became confident it was his, ands wrote the nonsense lyrics.  Mind if I shorten it?--Daveler16 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrambled eggs 

message: Although an uncited reference to it has recently been removed, the film named after the song probably warrants a mention. Thoughts? Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film 

message: Seems it's the standard on Wikipedia to put "written by John Lennon" at every given opportunity, because if a source claims McCartney had nothing to do with it, that's the one to use. McCartney himself claims he contributed to almost every song and in the Beatles anthology, while admitting John wrote most of "all you need us love", he still wrote part of it. Backed up by George Harrison, Ringo Starr and George Martin, in the same documentary, with all three refering to both of them as the writers of it. But, if Lennon fans can get away with giving John sole ownership, they'll have it. Meanwhile, when it's a McCartney song, the words "primarily" written by Paul McCartney proves to be the prefferd phrasee, hintig that "he didn't do it on his own." Such a shame this bias is allowed to run rampant through Wikipedia. 77.98.216.8 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We follow the sources, not personal opinions or hearsay. Beatles-related articles are very well sourced because there is a huge amount of information available. One thing to remember: Lennon and McCartney had an agreement from the very beginning of their partnership that both would be credited for all songs they wrote (while in the Beatles). Song articles always indicate "credited to Lennon-McCartney". We can't do otherwise because those are the official credits for all Lennon and McCartney songs when they were in the Beatles. But please note that song articles also make a point of stating (almost always in the lead) what the sources say about the actual writer(s). This article is an example: "written by Paul McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney". No one is "erasing McCartney", and there is no conspiracy here by "Lennon fans". All Beatles articles have a lot of eyes on them. If such a conspiracy was even attempted, it would be immediately reverted. Everything on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. And there is no debate that all of their songs are "credited to Lennon-McCartney". You won't find a source any more reliable than those already used that states otherwise. Sundayclose (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasing McCartney 

message: with respect and assuming good faith, I have reverted your non-admin close and placed a message on your Talk page. This is such a high visibility move contrary to en.wikipedia guidelines, it could have a knock on effect elswhere in the article corpus, and is highly controversial, so an admin closer would be preferable. At least a relist would be expected at this 7 day mark. But if you push through your close again I will not revert a second time. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: following a request by Extorc on my talk page, I'm reinstating Extorc's close here. Procedurally, it was not legitimate to simply reverse the close simply because it was a non-admin close - WP:RMNAC is clear that not being an admin is not sufficient ground on its own to reject a close. Also, having looked over the discussion I think it's a fair close, the policy explicitly allows for partial primary topics if a sufficient bar is met, which a majority here felt it did. I'm happy to also put my endorsement on this close as an admin, if that makes things clearer for you.. If you still wish to challenge the close after this, the course of actino would be to discuss it with Extorc, perhaps mention some aspects you think they failed to consider. Then, if you're still not happy after discussion with Extorc, you can file an entry at WP:MRV. Cheers and I hope you're both having a good weekend otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Although I personally think that 3 oppose and 3 support would have been better served by a relist, No I do not think any further action is needed at this point. We'll see how the change benefits readers over the next year(s). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion after close

message: Re , I did a little bit of digging in search of the original source. The citation just added for the "2,200 covers" claim is to cheatsheet.com, but this in turn cites a "book" by PediaPress, based on Wikipedia (quote: "BBC News named his song "Yesterday" the most covered song in history—by over 2,200 artists"). The citation ([625]) is not available in the Google Books version of the Pedia Press book. However, the citation for this claim in the Paul McCartney article, where the Pedia Press book presumably got it from, is to a BBC article from 1999. So that's the citation I've gone with. God knows where the BBC got their information from. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original 2,200 cover versions citation