Talk:Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

whats 'torchy' mean? Mostlyharmless 10:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--In the style of a Torch Singer.--Nickpheas 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the babswhazee strike again[edit]

Noticed she got moved to the head of the line. I guess alphabetical order won't do for the leftwing pukes who eat her up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.192.57 (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Timbalake[edit]

Wasn't his song cry me a river a completely different song rather than a version of this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty3891 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Justine Timberlake song is a completely different song, with different lyrics. His name should not be on the list of versions. Babowman (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be mentioned in the article, though.

--Felix Tritschler (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Spanish version?[edit]

I heard the Susan Boyle and Julie London versions of Cry Me a River plus Te Lloré un Río from Maná and I think Te Lloré... isn't a cover of Cry Me a River (although the Te Lloré... lyrics might be inspired in Cry Me... and the same song may contain some kind of plagiarism (apart from any possible rights deal from this rock band or his label)).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Efgn (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bublé Advert[edit]

The Michael Bublé section of this page is sycophantic opionated drivel probably written by an intern from his record company.

"'Cry Me A River' EP is now available to pre-order at iTunes. The EP has 4 tracks; including the new single 'Cry Me A River' and an incredible live recording of 'Everything' from Madison Square Gardens."

This belongs on the EMI home page-not wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty3891 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire section. There's no reason to spotlight his recording to the exclusion of dozens of others, some of which are as or more noteworthy than his. Whoever cares can go to the Michael Bublé page. Pergish1 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have a revision war going, with the profile-free user "IWannaABillionaire" reinserting the Buble section with the justification that it was a high-charting version. Even if this were a good reason, which it isn't, so were Julie London's and Barbra Streisand's, and they don't get their own section. I'm taking it out again and, if necessary, will request that this be handled through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. IWanaABillionaire, if you intend to edit this section again, please explain your rationale here on the talk page. Pergish1 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given another change by IWannaABillionaire and no participation in this discussion, I have requested full protection on the article. --Pergish1 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me. All of Billionaire's other edits are song stuff, with perhaps a Canadian content thing going on. I'm at work (this is not work) but it might be worth a look into, Einar akaCarptrash (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011[edit]

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Expanding the hatnote seems wise, though. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

– There is a different Justin Timberlake song, so this song must be disambiguated per WP:NCM. Should it be (year song) or (songwriter song)? I don't think (singer song) is a good idea, as the first or "famous" person who sang the song is obscure nowadays. This song... I don't think that's popular; they are probably looking for the more popular Timberlake one. The stats that I provide is troubling to decipher. I don't think people would want to read about the "classic" jazz song ever again, would they? George Ho (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hmm... "Cry Me a River" is a classic jazz songs that's (probably, I don't have an exact figure) been covered by hundreds of artists. I would need convincing that it wasn't the primary topic of the song. And then with that aside, it would be hard to also put a name on. I do agree that people looking for "Cry Me a River" in this day and age may not be looking for this particular song. I'm open to be swayed either way.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it should be moved -- the original "Cry Me a River" will continue to be the primary topic for some time, I think. While the original article gets only half the traffic of the Timberlake song, and some of those hits are probably people looking for the Timberlake song, I'd rather see more than a 2-to-1 difference when deciding to change the primary. For example, see the difference between http://stats.grok.se/en/201302/glee%20(music) and http://stats.grok.se/en/201302/glee%20(tv%20series). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Considering that the jazz song last charted in 2009, and was used extensively in the Vancouver Winter Olympics coverage in 2010, it appears that it is enduring rather more than the Timberlake song. It also featured in an iconic film, which is still shown frequently by television stations around the world. This proposal really has a snowball in hell's chance of going through. It really is a very clear case of primary topic. Just give up now on this one George Ho: it starts hurting when you keep banging your head against a brick wall. All that you're doing is making a fool of yourself and exposing your lack of musical knowledge. (And no, that wasn't an attack, just a bit of good advice). Incidentally, try an Advanced Google search for Cry Me A River excluding Wikipedia and Justin Timberlake (5.4 million) against one for Cry Me A River plus Justin Timberlake excluding Wikipedia (2.3 million). I'm not suggesting that brief look gives a definitive answer, but it does indicate your initial suspicion is way off the mark. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. for all the good reasons noted above. This nomination conclusively proves, that for songs, disambiguation is not only necessary, but beneficial. Anybody looking for the Justin Timberlake version will find it much quicker and easier seeing Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song), whereas anybody looking for this song could be referencing any number of performers. I am not convinced that many song RMs are in the interest of the reader or WP, this being a prime example. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Oppose I think putting a "For the Justin Timberlake song see "Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)", at the top of the page is a good idea. Or else when he decides to write another song called "The Long and Winding Road" we have to do this all over again. This Cry Me a River has been a very up front song for over half a century, covered by zillions of artists. It should stay. Einar aka Carptrash (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 January 2015[edit]

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. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

– Revisiting. I don't consider the Arthur Hamilton song to be the primary topic for the term "Cry Me a River". For one, Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) receives more views even with the Hamilton song as the primary topic. [1] [2] Secondly, a quick Google search shows a pretty even split between the Hamilton and Timberlake songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I realize the last RM brought up concerns about how to disambiguate. However, since this is a standard and many different singers' versions are known, I think following the example of Anything Goes (Cole Porter song) is a good idea. A dabpage listing would, of course, reference London and Fitzgerald's notable renditions and note that it has been covered by many other artists. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reluctantly since in this case WP:NCM means moving a classic song to (dab), but lets face it some Wikipedia users have never heard of ABBA or the Beatles, much less a 1950s jazz classic. The Timberlake song is also getting covers. Cry Me a River (disambiguation) should be at baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry to see this. The original song by Arthur Hamilton, considered a classic, is part of the Great American Songbook according to Google.[3] (Too bad the wiki articles on this isn't very good.) The Justin Timberlake song is an entirely different song, written by Timberlake and his producer and "inspired" by his relationship with Britney Spears. It is not a "classic" or a "standard". Unless the dab page makes this clear, I think a huge piece of song writing history will be lost. The two songs are entirely different. EChastain (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per SarekOfVulcan, Skinsmoke, Carptrash, Richhoncho in the last RM above. That most readers have never heard of this jazz classic just means that recentism prevails, and the job of Wikipedia in helping folks get their knowledge expanded will have failed. Further, people may get confused and think that these two very different songs are variations of the same song. EChastain (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RECENTISM is only an essay, not a guideline or policy, and it generally pertains to undue weight in articles, not article titles / disambiguation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my argument in the previous RM. I don't see that their relative importance has changed since then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom and per WP:NCM. I accept that the song is a standard, but comparing the Timberlake with the London song is comparing apples with pears and ultimately can only be a matter of opinion. I cannot remember why I opposed in the last RM, I can only assume that I , rightly or wrongly, assumed that the nomination was in part to bump up the Timberlake title to pole position - something I would continue to oppose. These titles are a perfect example why no song should have primary position because of the indeterminable considerations that have to be made and why we have WP:NCM. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose name change. The original song is an acknowledged standard. This means (another phrase that replaces "in my opinion") that it will still be going strong after the other one runs its course. Mr Timberlake and Ms. Spears are hot items these days but have a long was to go before becoming "standards." Carptrash (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because Timberlake is so cool 76.120.164.90 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's simply no comparison. The original Cry Me a River is part of the Great American Songbook and is a jazz standard covered by numerous artists. Its 2002 namesake is a relatively recent pop song covered by a handful. Also we must ask ourselves if the musicians of 2064 will be performing a song written just after the millennium as the jazz singers of today do a song written in 1953. This is Paul (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a part of the Great American Songbook does not automatically make a song a primary topic. Long-term significance is a factor in determining a primary topic, yes, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. While Timberlake's song is unlikely to become a standard in the future recorded by many other artists, it is only an assumption. Also, the other aspect of determining a PTOPIC is readers/view stats, and the fact that Timberlake's song article receives more views than this - with the Hamilton song already a primary topic - is telling; it makes you wonder how many of the views for Hamilton's song come from readers expecting Timberlake's. It's not Wikipedia's job to educate readers on what some editors feel is a more important topic; it's our job to best serve the reader, and the reader would be best served if there were no primary topic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when reading the opening sentence of the Great American Songbook article, I'm inclined to believe the song's inclusion in that collection of works is definitely a consideration as to whether we should or shouldn't move the article: "The Great American Songbook is the canon of the most important and most influential American popular songs of the 20th century". The words most important and most influential are telling as they would suggest the song is held in fairly high regard by musical scholars and therefore this article is the primary topic. Timberlake is bound to get more hits simply because we live in the here and now. We shouldn't move this until/unless his song has an equal status to the jazz standard. This is Paul (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation exists so that "readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek", not so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article Wikipedia editors wish to point them towards. Your logic borders on WP:POINT. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, by linking to WP:POINT, you're suggesting that I'm frustrated or attempting to discredit the policy then let me make it clear this is certainly not the case. But since you've chosen to make the accusation I feel it's appropriate for me to have no further role in this discussion. This is Paul (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize how you may have misinterpreted my comment and I apologize for the confusion. I didn't intend to suggest you were being disruptive, nor was I singling you out specifically. I'm merely saying the general notion that disambiguation should go in the order of what some editors feel is the more "important" topic comes dangerously close to being POINTy. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified WikiProjects: JAZZ, POPMUSIC, SONG, JT. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oppose. Did someone mention apples and pears? This proposal is to do just that, to make it inconsistent with the Timberlake song. It proposes Song title (writer) but the Timberlake article is currently Song title (singer). For the two article titles to be consistent, the Timberlake one would also need to be changed to include the song's writers, giving us Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake,Timothy Mosley and Scott Storch song). What's good for the goose..... Moriori (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation is typically performed based on what the song is best known for. I've seen instances such as The Hanging Tree (The Hunger Games song) and Let It Go (Disney song), where a song is best known as part of a franchise; I've seen instances such as the Timberlake song where it is best known for one artist's performance. What is there to do when you have a song like the older "Cry Me a River", which has been recorded by numerous artists? There is no one rendition of that song that is more well-known than others (at least not by a wide margin). –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned apples and pears. Although there is nothing written, older songs are generally disambiguated by date or by songwriter, whilst newer songs by artist. The rationale is that older songs were recorded almost immediately by several artists whereas these days fame is derived from one artist's performance. Alexander isn't Berlin, so I would happily consider alternative options, but I am not sure your suggestion of naming Timberlake's co-writers as having any value. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I change to oppose, because the proposal is for Title/writer for Hamilton but Title/singer for Timberlake. Moriori (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The problem with this proposal, which is supposedly to help readers find the article they want, is that it makes it far more difficult for readers. Probably the majority of readers searching for the jazz classic will have heard the versions by Ella Fitzgerald, Julie London or, more recently, Michael Bublé. When presented with a choice between Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) and Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song) (as they will be when presented in a dropdown list if searching on Wikipedia, or by alternative hits on a Google search), they are unlikely to know which entry to choose. Even Cry Me a River (disambiguation) is unlikely to be any help as it simply notes the London/Bublé version as "Cry Me a River" is a 1953 popular song written by Arthur Hamilton and recorded by various artists. In other words, they are going to have to access the articles to see which is the one they are looking for. At present, anyone looking for the Justin Timberlake song will simply be able to choose Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) from the choices they are presented with. The proposal, contrary to the claim made for it, does not make it easier for readers to find the article they want, but makes it extremely difficult to do so for those searching for one of the songs, and a fair number of readers are likely to give up in the process. However, there is a very good case for adding and expanding the hatnotes on the two articles, as was noted in the previous move request. Can I suggest that Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) has a hatnote added reading For the jazz song recorded by Ella Fitzgerald, Julie London, Michael Bublé and numerous other artists see Cry Me a River. For other uses see Cry Me a River (disambiguation). And that the jazz song's hatnote be amended to For the song by Justin Timberlake see Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song). For other uses see Cry Me a River (disambiguation). Skinsmoke (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent point--I'll check and see if there are redirects yet, and I'll make them immediately if I spot any missing. Red Slash 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can concede that you make a good point here, but at the same time, it's unfair to steer readers to this song when statistics show that Timberlake's song receives more views (albeit not to the level that that is a primary topic). I get that finding a proper disambiguator can be difficult, but what about "(standard)", "(jazz song)", "(popular song)", or "(1953 song)"? Do any of those work? –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Incidentally, there is a world of a difference from Anything Goes (Cole Porter song). That song is particularly associated with Cole Porter, who not only wrote it but featured it in one his extremely popular musicals. It is therefore a natural disambiguator. Apart from jazz afficionados, does anyone know who Arthur Hamilton is? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response. user:Skinsmoke, Some interesting comments there. I note there is already Cry Me a River (Michael Bublé song), a redirect, and I can't see any problem with similar for Ella, Julia, etc. as required. However, anybody seeing this title, Cry Me a River, the Timberlake fans will assume, incorrectly, this is the target they are aiming for, just the same as the Bublé, Ella, London fans would do. That is confusing for everybody. So the underlying question is how do we get people to the right article? To answer this we need to step away from our prejudices (if we have any) and work out the best way. I would be interested in your opinion... --Richhoncho (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really don't know Richhoncho. My problem with the proposal is not that "the jazz song must be the primary topic", but rather that "Arthur Hamilton is not particularly known to be associated with the song." If we are to disambiguate the jazz song, I suppose I would consider that Cry Me a River (Julie London song) was the best option. Even though it was written for Ella Fitzgerald, it was Julie London's version that got the first release, and the song is particularly associated with her, due to it having become famous through a film. With a redirect from Cry Me a River (Michael Bublé song) and Cry Me a River (Ella Fitzgerald song), that may ensure most readers finished up where they want to be. Alternatively, it may just be preferable to leave things where they are. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a "for Justin Timberlake song see Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)" at the top. How's that for getting folks around? Carptrash (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per the @Skinsmoke: comment. Although the one thing I disagree is the hatnote on Timberlake's song. The title itself states Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) [song, not cover]. There is no need for a hatnote there. As for the "Cry Me a River" torch song, yeah the hatnote is needed. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ella Fitzgerald, Etta James, Diana Krall, Michael Bublé, Julie London. . . This is the primary meaning of "Cry Me a River". Srnec (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think most reader know how to get what they want on something like this. If I want a song or a movie title etc. I go to the performer's page. Here I'd go to Justin Timberlake and find it from there rather than figure out how wikipedia named it. I think most redirects are for wikipedia editors, not readers. EChastain (talk)
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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Cry Me a River. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. This is a close call, but designation of a topic as a WP:PRIMARY TOPIC generally requires that an overwhelming majority of interest be directed at that topic, not merely taking the lead in a neck-and-neck race. There is clearly substantial support in the discussion for that interpretation. I will handle the disambiguation cleanup. bd2412 T 14:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Since last year, both songs have received very high traffic. JT's song, however, is almost 15,000 ahead. I'm not suggesting a primary topic, as there isn't one. Both songs are as notable as each other.[4] Unreal7 (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See The Most Beautiful Girl in the World (1935 song) as an example. Unreal7 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per the comments above and the view statistics of the respective pages. — Tom(T2ME) 09:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there was so much specific objection to (Arthur Hamilton song) that even though I supported it last time really think some of those who commented before should be pinged. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support None of them can be definitely said to be the primary topic, so it should be a disambiguation page. I also prefer Cry Me a River (1953 song), instead of the qualifier "(Arthur Hamilton song)", because the song seems to be known both for the writer and the singer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – While both songs get a similar number of page views, the 1953 song is vastly superior in long-term significance, given the umpteen covers by high-caliber artists over 60 years. We cannot determine today whether Justin Timberlake's song will still be popular in 2075, whereas Hamilton's has already been proven an enduring classic that keeps being refreshed by new interpretations. — JFG talk 12:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JFG. The earlier song is a clear winner in long term significance, given how many times it has been covered. The relatively higher number of page views on JT's song are just the usual WP:RECENTISM that we try to avoid.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is not even a relatively higher number of page views on the recent song (and the nominator admits as much). Both songs get about the same traffic: 256,000 vs 240,000 in the last 18 months, where the Timberlake song is leading slightly, and 85,000 vs 90,000 in the last 6 months, where the Hamilton song is leading slightly. — JFG talk 08:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism? The JT song came out in 2002! Unreal7 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I proposed disambiguation three years ago. I still support whatever disambiguation is used. "1953" or Hamilton or whatever. Longevity of the song doesn't make it primary topic. We should do what is best for readers to surf to. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Artists[edit]

I've removed the giant table of a few of the artists who have recorded this. It would be a good idea to list notable (i.e., charting or otherwise noteworthy, mentioned in their performer's article) versions of the song; for example, Joe Cocker and Michael Buble charted with it; Barbra Streisand's was the opening number on her debut album. But it's a standard; the whole point is that people who do standards are going to do this song, and it's not particularly noteworthy that they've done so over 60 years. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And someone reverted it, saying to discuss it on the talk page, and of course did not participate on the talk page. Yes, a lot of people added stuff to that list, and that's the problem. There are well over a thousand recordings of this song, and of course anyone interested can go over to allmusic.com or a similar site to find such a list. The list in this article is selected with no apparent criteria other than someone noticed someone else had covered the song. Why leave out the other hundreds of covers? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I've reverted again, per WP:SONGCOVER and WP:PROSE. In an article about a song we have NOTHING about the song, but a long list of people who recorded it. Why did they record it? I'll leave that for someone else to answer. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A list of 1000 is certainly too many, even 100, but cover versions help to tell the story of a song. I dislike the idea of expecting readers to rely on other sources, especially without referring them to a source containing a more exhaustive list. In selecting which ones to include, I prefer that we err on the side of noteworthiness instead of on the side of deletionism. - JGabbard (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to a piece of prose noting why a particular recording is notable, with references. All in line with WP:PROSE, WP:GNG and WP:SONGCOVER. What I don't want to see is references to unauthorised recordings of the song, single performances on TV and other trivia that was there. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Unauthorized" recordings? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 December 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. This is a close discussion, but there is a reasonable consensus grounded in policy. The proposed target is more consistent with the general pattern of titling songs (and consistency in article titles is important for an encyclopedia, as it gives readers a reason to expect that they can find articles at titles similar to comparable other articles. The title disambiguating by date will continue to redirect to the target, so no information will be lost. bd2412 T 19:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Me a River (1953 song) → Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song) – Although there have been three previous RMs (February 2013, January 2015 and December 2016, above), all were double-page move requests (including the dab page) centering upon consensus for the primary topic. This is the first single-page nomination which puts aside the question of primary topic and once-again (as in January 2015) proposes a qualifier that is analogous to Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song). The composer of the 1953 song is well known and should be specified in the same manner as Summertime (George Gershwin song), All of You (Cole Porter song), Always (Irving Berlin song) or Here Today (Paul McCartney song). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a name is an improvement In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Readers are more likely to associate the song with the 1950s than with Arthur Hamilton, who is a relatively obscure songwriter, not "well known". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who may feel that Arthur Hamilton is a "relatively obscure songwriter" is invited to read his biography's last paragraph which lists the names of stars who recorded his songs, as well as the fact that he has been nominated for an Oscar, two Emmys and a Golden Globe. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that he is not notable, but he is relatively obscure. I started his article in 2010, and found very little information to base it on. There are few if any profiles of him, or interviews, and - apart from those who have read the credits for this song - he is unknown to members of the public, or casual readers of the encyclopedia looking for an article about this song. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've looked into Hamilton and do find him to be obscure, despite his credits. Let me ask you @Roman Spinner:, had you ever heard of him? I am relatively knowledgeable about American song writers and had pretty much missed him until now. My best reference book,Tin Pan Alley: An Encyclopedia of the Golden Age of American Song does not mention him. Having said that, I think his song should be labeld as Cry Me a River (Hamilton song), because whether he is well known or not, it is his song. Credit where credit is due and all that. Carptrash (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I regret having raised the topic of Arthur Hamilton's notability/obscurity by adding within the nomination the words, "The composer of the 1953 song is well known and should be specified in the same manner as Summertime (George Gershwin song)…" Putting aside the question of songs by obvious singer-songwriter stars such as the above-mentioned Here Today (Paul McCartney song) and Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song), we already seem to have a uniform system of styling qualifiers for works of art which need such qualifiers.
Rather than indicating Xxxxxxx (1701 painting), Xxxxxxx (1801 book) or Xxxxxxx (1901 sculpture), we commonly place the creator's surname or full name within the qualifier. So it should be with songs. There should not be a "top tier" of Gershwin, Berlin or Porter, who "deserve" or are "eligible" to have their names within qualifiers, and a "middle tier" or an "obscure tier" of composers whose works rise only to the level of being qualified simply as "(1953 song)".
If such tiers were to be initiated, we would need to have an RM for each song which requires a qualifier, or at least a discussion for each composer or songwriter, and create a list of those who are eligible to have their names within qualifiers and those who are not so eligible, despite having written standards, such as "Cry Me a River".
As for whether the qualifier should be Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song) per nomination, or Cry Me a River (Hamilton song) per above suggestion, we look for guidance to the already-existing qualifiers, such as the ones above.
Should the above main headers be changed to Cry Me a River (Timberlake song), Summertime (Gershwin song), Always (Berlin song) or Here Today (McCartney song)? If so, then Cry Me a River (Hamilton song) would be the analogous form. It is up to us to arrive at a consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not exactly proposing Cry Me a River (Hamilton song) as a title, it just came out of my keyboard. I am happy with Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song). Carptrash (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no need for rigid consistency between articles over matters like this. In fact, it should be actively avoided, and we should assess titles on a case-by-case basis, determined by what title is most likely to be understood by readers. Some songs are more closely associated with their performers, and others with their writers. Although personally I wouldn't object to this article being called Cry Me a River (Julie London song), as she is the performer who I most closely associate with it, I'm also aware that there are other versions that may be better known to some. I really don't think that Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song) would be an improvement over the current title, as Hamilton is, I'm afraid, unknown to most readers. I would even more strongly oppose Cry Me a River (Hamilton song), as that would suggest to many that it is part of the musical. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly the point — consistency, rigid or otherwise, is what we strive for while disambiguating. For instance, in film articles, we don't indicate Nevada (Gary Cooper film) or Nevada (Robert Mitchum film), but rather Nevada (1927 film) or Nevada (1944 film). Such form is followed for all films, per WP:WikiProject Film.
If titles of song (or book, painting, sculpture) articles were to follow this form, then Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song) would, indeed, be unnecessary and Cry Me a River (1953 song) would suffice. But, by the same token, Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) would also be rendered as Cry Me a River (2002 song). Summertime (George Gershwin song) would become Summertime (1935 song), All of You (Cole Porter song) would be All of You (1954 song), Here Today (Paul McCartney song) → Here Today (1982 song) and so on.
Unlike the "rigid consistency" applied to film qualifiers, song qualifiers basically follow three inconsistent forms — 1) the name of the composer, such as Summertime (George Gershwin song), without regard to the names of many stars who recorded a version of it, or the name of the singer-songwriter who wrote and recorded the song in question, such as Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song), without regard, again, to the names of other performers who may have subsequently recorded a version of it;
2) One key performer's name, such as Secret Love (Doris Day song), even if the performer is not indicated as having a hand in the song's creation and the song also had successful recordings by other performers;
and 3) the year of the song's copyright, first recording or initial public performance, such as Cry Me a River (1953 song).
Disambiguation for songs may not be directly comparable to disambiguation for films, but the use of qualifiers "(1953 film)" and "(1953 song)" is directly comparable. For films that form is almost entirely predominant (except for use of additional detail when two same-named films are associated with the same year). For songs, however, there is no guideline as to when a name or a year should be used, thus leaving it to the inconsistency of individual use.
It would seem that the qualifiers for songs should be either all names or all years and the randomly inconsistent mix of both is not helpful to the project. Such matters, however, are best left to WP:WikiProject Songs, WP:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation, WP:Manual of Style/Music and WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the cases you mention, the writers of the song are widely known, which is not the case here. What you see as inconsistency, to be avoided, is what I see as a common-sense case-by-case approach, to be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To provide an example of the inconsistent nature associated with "(YEAR song)", a disclosure — on May 14, 2015 I decided to WP:BE BOLD and move Always (1925 song) to Always (Irving Berlin song). In the intervening two-and-a-half years, no one has challenged it but, since it was an undiscussed move, should we ask for it to reverted to "(1925 song)" and have a similar discussion about Irving Berlin's "Always"?
If we agree that sufficient fame attaches itself to Irving Berlin's name for the use of the form "(Irving Berlin song)" and the same extends to Stephen Foster, Victor Herbert, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, Richard Rodgers, Harry Warren or Alan Jay Lerner, then what about Egbert Van Alstyne, Walter Donaldson, Harry Ruby or Howard Dietz?
Should we search the internet on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a song deserves to be disambiguated as a "(Harry Ruby song)" or only as "(1933 song)"? Should we compile a guideline list at WP:WikiProject Songs of songwriters who are sufficiently notable to have their name within qualifiers, rather than be relegated to the anonymity of "(YEAR song)"? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far as the last two questions are concerned.... no, and no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency, especially with the only other wiki article on a song of this title. The fact that Arthur Hamilton apparently wrote both the music and the lyrics makes this even more appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In the 50s it was not uncommon for different versions by different artists of the same song to chart at the same time. To stick rigidly to (name of artist song) would do a disservice to the facts of older songs. I think we need to look at the history of recorded music before making a 2010s decision. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're not sticking to "(name of artist song)", we're using the name of the composer/songwriter, as in all of the examples in the RfC and indeed other disambiguated song titles on Wikipedia. There is therefore no possible confusion about versions, and different versions of any given song are normally detailed within one single wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is the standardized disambiguation method. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. Nick Number (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am changing my opinion, being convinced to do so by User:Ghmyrtle "common sense" appeal. Songs need not go the way of the movies, doing everything one way. Let's just leave it the way it is. Carptrash (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this just be the primary topic? I doubt the Timberlake song is even close to as notable, though I admit I haven't researched it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This song was the primary topic upon its creation on June 15, 2005. Two requested moves (February 25, 2013 and January 27, 2015) [see above] did not succeed in moving it. A third RM (December 21, 2016) did succeed in moving it from Cry Me a River to Cry Me a River (1953 song), instead of Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song). Support for the move was not unanimous and another RM, this time to return it to its original position as the primary topic may be warranted. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Timberlake song is a multi-platinum single with Britney Spears. Outside of music historians and hardcore enthusiasts, Timberlake's song is probably going to be the primary topic for general audiences. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Timberlake's a nice enough guy and I enjoyed his work in Inside Llewyn Davis, but I think there's no way his song can have the enduring significance of this one. Unfortunately, I have to admit that formally, the move to equal disambig was probably correct, but there's no freakin' way Timberlake's could actually be primary. --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Timberlakes music, so this isn't coming from a fanboy overestimating his significance or something. But it's a featured article and gets double the page views of this terribly written, short article. It's rather clear which one gets more interest from your general, every day person. But regardless, the point is moot, they both have their own sense of importance, so it's probably best that "Cry Me a River" by itself remain the dab page. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so if we really can't have primary topic then how about Cry Me a River (jazz standard)? I think most people looking for it don't know either what year it came out or who wrote it, but they do know what kind of song it is, and while you could argue about whether it's exactly jazz, no one should be surprised to see it described as a jazz standard. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per several key policies:
    • WP:RECOGNIZABLE – readers are almost always going to be more likely to know the author/artist name than the year of release (except perhaps for something that came out this week that they just heard on the radio). Note: knowing it was "in the 1950s" does absolutely nothing to help anyone find an article named "...(1953 song)" so specifically. When it comes to a disambiguation page, the entry on it would also give the year anyway.
    • WP:PRECISE – be no more precise than necessary; knowing the artist is more general information than knowing the exact year.
    • WP:NATURAL – we think, talk, and write in terms like 'that song "Thus-and-Such" by So-and-So', not 'that 1973 song "Thus-and-Such" by ... who cares?'.
    • Obviously, using the author/artist name also comports with WP:COMMONNAME better than using the date.
    • WP:CONSISTENCY – with how we disambiguate across this site generally (DAB by date is reserved for certain classes of things that really are best disambiguated that way), and especially when it comes to "single author" works; we use dates for films and TV series because no one person's/group's name adheres to them as an identifier in most cases.
    • Of all the WP:CRITERIA, the only odd one out is WP:CONCISE, but concision is meaningless without naturalness, recognizability, precision, and consitency. Otherwise we might as well just give all our articles random alphanumeric IDs like WikiData does.
In short, use the name most meaningful to the most readers. Always.
PS: That might actually make a reasonable argument for something like Cry Me a River (jazz standard), if we actually use that disambiguation and it's not being invented for this one case just to avoid using an author DAB on the basis that someone unfamiliar with the genre doesn't think he's "famous enough".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Songwriters, alas, tend not to get that much credit in the public mind, unless they sing their own songs, so I don't think (songwriter) disambiguation is going to be terribly useful most of the time. The first or most notable singer might be more "recognizable" — in this case that would be Cry Me a River (Julie London song), though embarrassingly I thought it was Patsy Cline (who actually never seems to have recorded the song, at least that I can discover).
But I really don't think we have to come up with a scheme for all possible songs here. I think ad-hoc disambiguation is OK, picking the disambiguator that makes sense for a given song, rather than trying to enforce consistency across widely different songs and genres where the considerations may be different and have different weights. So I like "jazz standard" or something along those lines. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left notices [mentioned above] on the talk pages of four guideline venues, including WP:WikiProject Songs and WP:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation which seem to have already brought input from editors who specialize in disambiguation matters and, hopefully, will invite additional contributors. Almost all songs which require qualifiers are currently disambiguated via three identifiers — 1) songwriter or singer-songwriter, 2) performer who is not the songwriter, or 3) year of copyright / recording / performance (which is the least apt form since few, if any, people identify a song on the basis of its exact year).
An entry such as Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) may seem an obvious candidate for identifier #1, but there is no specific guideline in formulating qualifiers for any one of the three identifier forms. For instance, if "My Way" needed a qualifier, we would most likely expect identifier #2, "(Frank Sinatra song)", rather than identifier #3, "(1968 song)" or identifier #1, "(Paul Anka song)", with its even-less-likely variation, "(Claude François and Jacques Revaux song)", even though Anka, François and Revaux are / were singer-songwriters themselves, while Sinatra has no creative credit for "My Way".
However, if we allow it to become a free-for-all / ad-hoc disambiguation, then the qualifiers would be limited only by the editor's imagination. If, for instance, an editor used as a qualifier the description by one of the above contributors — Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake multi-platinum single with Britney Spears) — or any variation upon such descriptive language, we would have numerous RMs discussing each imaginative qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Such a title would be renamed by consensus. And if not, oh well, it's not going to kill anyone. --Trovatore (talk) 04:19, 31 December 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blues?[edit]

I am inclined to remove the "blues" out of the statement "A jazzy blues ballad," because I can't find, either in the music or the sources anything to support it. Unless I missed something, which you can point out. Carptrash (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest "bluesy", not blues. Listen, for example, to Ella's or Sam Cooke's versions. (All OR, of course.) Is it using a blues scale? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possible usable source: Billboard, Irv Lichtman "Words and Music": "a classic bluesy love-lost opus" [5] --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A year later, @Jpgordon: I am willing to accept "bluesy" without the link to blues. So I am removing that. The song is not a blues song as defined in that article. 'Bluesy" is an adjective (?) that describes a mood that fits the song well. I also am concerned about source 1, the WSJ, since I can't access the part being referenced. Can anything be done about that? Carptrash (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there a copy of the WSJ article at https://cei.org/content/crying-river-years but I'd rather keep the original link. The cite is certainly legit -- what's being quoted is indeed in the article -- and paywalled sources are generally acceptable. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my jazz combo does an exact cover of the Julie London version of this (me on bass.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cry_Me_a_River_(Arthur_Hamilton_song)&oldid=1206835823"