Talk:Yesterday

message: The second paragraph seems childish to me, like something a 10 year old would say to confuse his classmates. Also, I think that most people know how "yesterday" works, and that explaining day after, before, and so on is sort of irrelevant. I'm deleting it.
:I am sorry you feel that way, but I don't like it is no reason for reversion.(3ucky(3all 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  second paragraph 

message: I just removed the Boyz II Men cover version of Yesterday from the page, as this cover version doesn't even have its own article, and according to the original's article "the Guinness Book of Records suggests over 3000 different cover versions to date." I don't see any reason this particular cover version deserves a mention, while none of the other does. BsL (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed 

message: The calculation seems to be wrong: Yesterday is the day before today. Yesterday was September 0, 2008 (UTC).
Mamen (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The date is correct for me. Perhaps you're viewing a cached version. Try purging your cache. AnemoneProjectors 03:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: Why is there no article for "Yesterday"? I mean the yesterday as in the day before today meaning. Why not? I always wanted to know why "yesterday" is called "yesterday". Sailor_Moon (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link to the wiktionary in the article (wikt:yesterday) which has some etymology information. --AmaltheaTalk 22:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: What could we put in the article? See WP:NOTADICTIONARY. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We could list all the things that happened yesterday ;-) AnemoneProjectors 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no article for "Yesterday"? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Yesterday (song) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a WP:Permalink of the move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Is there a reason why we can't place the Beatles song higher up on the page. Like it or not, there was a reason it was the primary topic here for more than a decade (and still should be if not for one of the worst closes I've seen). Calidum Talk To Me 14:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the fun some of you have been having with this ;). May I suggest a compromise? That the music sub-heading becomes the first heading, with songs the first sub-heading and the Beatle song top of the list of songs, thereby being the 3rd entry on the page.  --Richhoncho (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work for me. Calidum Talk To Me 22:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If anybody is unhappy please discuss here to reach a new consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, IIO, but in the interest of peace and understanding and offering an olive branch to those editors who think the WP:AT POLICY that reads Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles. i.e. SONGDAB doesn't apply to them. I am sure in a few years films will be back towards the top and nobody will care. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a general rule that films come first, but can anyone honestly say any of the films on the page come close to the notability of the song in question? Calidum Talk To Me 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the application of what is primary use, primary topic, more notable and the like is disruptive and not beneficial to an encyclopedia. If you don't believe me just look at this discussion and the RMs. If this was a paper encyclopedia the difference would be in the size of the article. I'd stick with alphabetical and be done with it. However we have a compromise which looks like all are prepared to accept - no point rocking the boat further. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're so concerned about style at this dab page it's useful to look at what MOS:DAB actually says. Under WP:DABORDER it says "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below." As it was shown that a significant majority of readers are looking for the Beatles song, it shouldn't be buried. Either it can go at the top along with Yesterday (past) or it can stay where it in the current arrangement, so long as readers can find it easily.--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of the Beatles song 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yesterday (time) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress