Talk:I Know Him So Well

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

Untitled[edit]

Corrected: Barbara Dickson did not go on to play Svetlana in the original London cast (only Paige, Körberg, and Head did). Her part was taken by Siobhan McCarthy. Interestingly, McCarthy followed Dickson as the Mistress in the original London cast of Evita as well. --Cadriel 19:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comic relief 2011 version[edit]

This entry is about the original song, not the Susan Boyle pastiche. The latter detail should be placed elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is possible. A consensus was reached regarding the usage of separate pages for covers of the same song. Novice7 (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about the Boyle spoof should be placed under Comic Relief or Kay's entry. This is about the original version and not for trivia about the Kay pastiche. It should be kept in proportion with the listings for other cover versions and not a running update on chart position (which isn't great anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kay pastiche is being given too much weight in this article and should be cut down. It is a here today, gone tomorrow spoof, the article should be about the original, not a comic cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YET every other song which key covered was also place in the original wiki page, This Spoof stays very true to the original and also has a connection between Susan Boyle and Elaine Paige, I dare say that is why she was pick to do this song. Only the video is a spoof her singing is far from poor.

yes running update on chart position is not needed I can agree with you on that, but the information it holds is I say the right amount for the page, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyle entry is just a puff for the RND single. It reads more like a fanzine than an authoritative entry. First name terms and trivia make this an amateurish appendage to the titled entry. Again, the Kay pastiche deserves only a couple of lines here, not a fan club. Put it under Comic Relief or Boyle, it hasn't even had much airtime (perhaps because it and the daft video are rubbish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Boyle and Kay poor as porridge spoof must be given an oversize entry (why?), it does not deserve its own infobox and chronology for both "singers". It should also be in adult language, not baby talk. I have to remind you, this entry is about the original song and one of many copycat versions does NOT deserve a half-page entry! Wikipedia is a record of fact, not a fanzine to promote a charity single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, notable singles can have a half-page on its own. In Boyle's case, it fails WP:NSONGS. I've merged the information with the cover versions section. Novice7 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's MUCH better. Let's hope it stays that way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been "suggested" the Boyle gimmick video is merged with the definitive version. One line is all it needs, it has no more priority than any other cover version. You "know so well" that this has been agreed previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kay parody not notable[edit]

The Kay gimmick version is not notable and does not deserve a fanzine section here. Put the fan stuff under Comic Relief, it is just one of many covers and it should not have priority over any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has charted, and so passes notability. Moreover, as there is a video, and a single release , I think it should be mentioned. It is not fanzine. See When You Believe, A Little Bit. Novice7 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entry is a promotion for the single, not useful information. The original was a massive hit at No. 1 without the promotional machinery of RND. The puffing up of one rather poor cover over other covers is promotion and fan material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original was at no. 1 for 4 weeks and holds numerous honours. The comic cuts pastiche didn't even make it to the top 10. As for the video, leave the parody to French and Saunders.

Update[edit]

The Boiler version is bombing down the charts and has no priority over previous imitations in the list of covers. The fanzine material has no place here, just promotion for a failing single and cheap as chips video. See [1] for the proof. Down 22 places after just 2 weeks, can't compare with 4 weeks at No. 1, so doesn't warrant a puffed-up sub-section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fanzine material? Can you explain? Also, the song reached "a peak" of number 11, and it is descending the charts. Novice7 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. 11 is hardly a "peak" and that it is "descending" from the height of no. 11 to the 30s (and lower by Sunday) says it all. A footnote should suffice, not an entire sub-section or own entry. All the fan stuff can be put under CR or RND 2011, that's where it belongs. It is fanzine because it is trying to coat tail the classic version but with nothing of note beyond "Susan liked this song" or suchlike puffery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reversions can't save a sinking ship of single so no use trying to coat tail on the success of the classic version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition[edit]

The reinstated puff for the RND effort does not need three mentions of the "video". It's repetition and not informative. The quote from Boyle is just a reminiscence, adds nothing useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coat-tailing of Boyle version on classic version[edit]

It can't be right for one cover to get an oversize entry over others. In any case, the oversize data box is intruding on the stats for the orginal version so I've moved these up to marry with the original, not the base of the Boyle attempt. Same goes for the categories, these should not be overshadowed by the Kay sketch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.109.186 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The boyle version was the biggest faller in the charts in its second week falling 33 places down from an unremarkable no 11. It will be out of the top 40 soon, hardly worth an entire section compared with the classic (4 weeks at No. 1, gold). How can such a chart flop be "notable". The video was tripe and that's why it hasn't caught on despite all the PR machinery of RND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.102 (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:NSONGS? It clearly says "if the song has charted", not "if the song reached the top ten" or "top top five" or "number one". I'm going to discuss this issue out. Until a consensus is reached, please don't remove the information. Novice7 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Kay and Boyle version[edit]

Susan Boyle and Peter Kay released a cover of "I Know Him So Well" as a single. The version charted on UK singles chart and reached number 11. An editor feels that their version need not have an infobox. I would like to discuss this issue out. Novice7 (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Novice. The single has charted, which means it is notable. Moreover, it was officially released. Then, why not? It should have one. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Jivesh. It is notable per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Also covers should be included on the original song article. Novice7 (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Charting' is hardly a criterion for notability. It's just one of many cover and an unfunny paroday of the original which is bombing down the charts like a lead balloon. It's not more 'notable' than any other cover version of the classic track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.102 (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP address needs to go and sit down.... Per WP:NSONGS a song is notable when it is covered by several notable artists. Susan Boyle to date has around 6.5-7 million album sales around the world. She topped many album charts and is frequently in the news. To call her version, which was released for charity, not notable is a joke and against all logic. On wikipedia we don't count the number of weeks a song charts etc. as important for notability. In the UK top-twenty is considered a hit as the UK Singles Chart consists of 100 positions, so to call a song which reached number 11 by one of the biggest selling UK artists of the last three years, and by someone who's performed for the Queen and is frequently in the media not notable is ludacris. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as if she just "peaked". Performing for the Queen is no criterion for notability. I hope Her Majesty had earplugs. One poor cover version that failed to echo the success of the classic version does not deserve a promotional entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.102 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the info about its chat in other countries? has it has been released else where would that not count for something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of notable cover version single cover[edit]

Since the image, [2], has removed by one editor citing WP:NFCC and reverted by two other editors also citing WP:NFCC, I am starting a discussion here so that the image is not deleted simply for being orphaned.

The single cover for the Melanie C and Emma Bunton cover version pass the points of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#3 is met because the single covers is used for identification its respective versions and the Chairmen of the Board single cover cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of Melanie C and Emma Bunton's versions. WP:NFCC#8 is met because the single cover is used for identification and the image increases readers' understanding and not having it would be detrimental to the understanding of Melanie C and Emma Bunton's version.

The current consensus for single covers in section infoboxes to represent notable cover versions are that they pass WP:NFCC. Since WP:SONGCOVER says notable cover versions should be covered in the article about the song and not have its own article, but if it had their own articles, the image would be acceptable there, so it is acceptable in the sections of the song article. The single cover is not alternate covers for the Chairmen of the Board cover, it is the primary cover for Melanie C and Emma Bunton's version and should be treated as such. If it is felt that the image should still be removed than the image should be taken to Wikipedia:Files for deletion instead of simply removed from the article.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both the Melanie C and Emma Bunton cover and the Peter Kay and Susan Boyle cover, that was also removed as failing WP:NFCC, as identifying notable cover versions that pass all the points of WP:NFCC as expressed by SuperHotWiki. Aspects (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paige/Dickson chart positions[edit]

What about a section for the chart success of the original version? (Coachtripfan (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I Know Him So Well. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Know Him So Well. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Know_Him_So_Well&oldid=1207683445"