Talk:Stand by Me (Ben E. King song)

Untitled

are you sure sam cooke recoded a version of this song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.234.240 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Demis Roussos

There is also a cover version of this song by Demis Roussos, see [1] -- MarkusHagenlocher (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the article, the song was on Roussos album Reflection. -- MarkusHagenlocher (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Common misconception

The title paragraph on the main page says this is somehow related to Charles Tindley's song, but there is no similarity between the two. (Well, they share the same title but so do 30 other songs.) I'm taking the tindley reference out.

To see the tindley lyrics and a midi file go to

  Stand by Me by Charles Tindley.

To hear Doc Watson's version of the Tindley song, see youtube at

  | Stand By Me - Doc Watson and David Holt

These are unrelated songs and the title paragraph for King's song should not include this reference. Arthur1414 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

melody ?

I am not a native speaker of English, but is this right (Green Day-entry)? King for a Day/Shout melody during their 2009 tour
We call it medley (thought it was an English word) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.121.24 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 May 2010

Timon and Pumbaa

There was a very famous version of this song in a video with The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa that aired before various movies and during commercial breaks between Disney programming. It should be covered in this article.--96.29.174.77 (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Editorial Language

This paragraph:

"The fact that arranger Stan Applebaum could not possibly have dashed off an entire string chart at the end of a session, much less copied and distributed all the parts, supports this less dramatic version of the events."

Is speculative and not encyclopedic at all. 209.188.63.211 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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 no consensus. Relisting seems unlikely to lead to a different result. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Stand by Me (song) → Stand by Me (Ben E. King song) – Two other songs called "Stand by Me" by Shayne Ward and Oasis. Unreal7 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - thank you User:Unreal7 good proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, the primary song. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:NCM which is supported by WP:AT. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I concur with Tbhotch.

WP:NCM addresses titles such as "Symphony No. 2" for which there would be no natural primary topic, and explicitly not descriptive names, so it does not apply here. WP:D suggests the following methods of determining a primary topic: 1) Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere; 2) Wikipedia article traffic statistics or Wiki ViewStats traffic statistics; and 3) Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches. WhatLinksHere shows nearly 500 links to Stand by Me (song), vs. 114 for the Oasis song and 28 for the Shayne Ward song. Article Traffic Statistics for views in the past 90 days: Stand by Me (song) - 74,136; Oasis song - 6,398; Shayne Ward song - 704. Wiki ViewStats for December 2013: Stand By Me (song) - 26,647 hits; Oasis song - 2,058 hits; Shayne Ward song - 244 hits. And a Google search for "Stand by Me" + "Ben E. King" has the King song out-hitting "Stand by Me" + "Oasis" 2 to 1—never mind the countless references to recordings of the King/Leiber/Stoller song that don't mention Ben E. King by his full name, if at all.

This points up another issue with the proposed move: unlike the other two songs, each of which is associated almost exclusively with a single performer, the present article's "Stand by Me" is a standard that has been recorded hundreds, if not thousands, of times, including chart hits for several artists. Subtitling the article "Ben E. King song" is problematic in terms of performer (as King is not the only significant one) and writer (as King is a cowriter rather than sole author). Thus, per WP:D and other practical considerations, I suggest that the best solution is to leave things as they are. Pstoller (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your first point, that's not what WP:SONGDAB (part of WP:NCM) says, and as I pointed out, specifically authorised by a policy, namely, WP:AT. There is a logical and reasonable argument why song titles should eschew primarytopic.

As for your second point, please see, for example, amongst many others, Fever (Little Willie John song). --Richhoncho (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither WP:SONGDAB nor WP:AT suggests that song titles should eschew primary topic. If there is a logical and reasonable argument why they should, it is not to be found there (nor, thus far, here). WP:SONGDAB only discusses how to disambiguate when necessary, but offers no guidance about determining necessity. WP:AT also provides no such guidance, other than to refer to WP:D. In addition to the relevant sections of WP:D that I have already quoted and addressed, WP:D's Is there a primary topic? section suggests the following two basic criteria:

• A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
• A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

The current article easily passes both of those tests.

As for your example of "Fever," the disambiguation page lists fourteen songs by that title, as opposed to seven for "Stand by Me." However, I would argue that the Blackwell/Cooley "Fever" merits being listed as "Fever (song)," as 1) it would pass all of WP:D's tests of primacy, and 2) it is best known as performed by Peggy Lee. I have no interest in proposing such a move myself, but if someone else were to do so (without the unhelpful "1956" of the most recent move proposal), I would support it. Pstoller (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SONGDAB says, inter alia, Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). Unless multiple albums of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. (my bold). This is because song titles are two a penny, the "primary topic" can change week by week and notability is transient. A new 'Stand by Me' next week that is more notable than any of the presently known titles. So easy to happen. This is why, say, Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is where it is. Also, Fever is where it is because of a RM, and, as you noticed, failed to be moved again. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The key phrase: only when needed. WP:SONGDAB does not specify when that would be. Rather, it gives one example—not comparable to this case—of when such disambiguation for an album "is fine." It says nothing at all about when to disambiguate song titles, although the implication is that they should be treated similarly to album titles.

Song titles are reused because they cannot be copyrighted, but the titles of successful songs are not "two a penny." (Ask any music publisher.) The primary topic of a song title might "change week by week" if, and only if, the song is not a hit, not famous, and/or not well-established over time. This article, however, is about one of the most successful and famous songs in history—one that has only grown in stature since it first charted over 50 years ago. The notability of (as the article states) "the fourth most-performed song of the 20th century" is clearly not transient, at least as popular songs go. Could a new, more notable "Stand by Me" emerge next week? Sure—although it would take many years for it to prove itself as such. (Compare Cry Me a River and Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song).) But, until that actually happens, the point is moot.

As far as I can tell, "Fever (Little Willie John song)" is where it is because it was created there, not because of an RM. "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)," OTOH, was originally "Thriller (album)." It took three RMs to move it (with the third passing 4 votes to 3), and there's already been one RM attempt to move it back. I agree here with what Tbhotch said there—it shouldn't have been moved in the first place, per WP:TITLECHANGES:

• Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.

WP:SONGDAB does not provide a single compelling reason to move this article, nor does WP:AT. Neither does precedent: When multiple songs by one title exist, some are listed merely as "___ (song)"; of those not, some disambiguation is by first recording artist, some is by songwriter, and some is by year of first release. Meanwhile, per WP:D, I have provided substantial evidence that the subject of this article meets all the qualifications of a primary topic. In response, I have yet to see any evidence that a significant number of people come here seeking another song of the same name, or that people seeking this song fail to find the article because it lacks King's name in the title. Ergo, this RM is a solution in search of a problem—directly in conflict with WP:TITLECHANGES and, for that matter, the "only when needed" clause in WP:SONGDAB. Pstoller (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So we ignore Stand by Me (Shayne Ward song) and Stand by Me (Oasis song)? Please go and read the policy and the guideline again. Songdab specifically says where there 2 or more we should fully disambiguate, which is why this song was nominated. If this article was in the right place to begin with we wouldn't have to move it. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't ignore "Stand by Me (Shayne Ward song)" and "Stand by Me (Oasis song)"; we recognize that they have been sufficiently disambiguated to avoid confusion with the primary topic, "Stand by Me (song)". I have read the relevant guidelines thoroughly; I suggest that you re-read them, as SONGDAB absolutely does not say, "where there 2 or more we should fully disambiguate." Rather, it says, "under no circumstances other than when there are two or more should we fully disambiguate," which is quite a different thing. The language still explicitly disparages any disambiguation other than that which is necessary. Likewise, TITLECHANGES disparages any title change that is not necessary. In light of WP:PTOPIC—which SONGDAB neither negates nor contradicts—no necessity for a title change for this article has been demonstrated; ergo, it should not be changed.

If SONGDAB overrode PTOPIC and TITLECHANGES, there would be no need for an RM here at all. You wouldn't even need an editor to fix what would clearly be a guideline violation; instead, a bot could change all article titles for songs, albums, etc. where the DAB page lists any other entries for works of the same type with the same title. (This bot would be very busy, as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of such articles.) But SONGDAB doesn't override anything; so, there is no such guideline to violate.

It follows that the only actual issue here is whether the current article meets the definition of a primary topic. I have demonstrated at length and in detail why I believe that it does. Neither you nor the original petitioner has attempted to show otherwise. Instead, your entire argument boils down to the presumption that PTOPIC doesn't apply to song titles. Now, I understand that it is your opinion that PTOPIC shouldn't apply to song titles. I accept this as a reasoned opinion, though I do not share it. Regardless, WP guidelines—including SONGDAB—do not exclude any subject area from PTOPIC. So, if you have an argument why this particular song (as opposed to any song) does not qualify as a primary topic, by all means make it. Otherwise, we're just going in circles, and we each only have one vote after all. Again, per TITLECHANGES:

• Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. (all emphasis added)

Pstoller (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Life is too short to rebut everything in the above. Just to let you know I did re-read the policies, the guidelines and your comments above. I still stand by every word I have said here. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Typically it's good practice to add the artist when there are articles on other songs of the same title, but this one is so much better known than all the other ones that it can be treated as an exception to the rule. It was viewed 74,499 page views in 90 days compared to 6493 for Stand by Me (Oasis song), 699 for Stand by Me (Shayne Ward song), and a whopping 85 for Stand by Me (Atomic Rooster song). I see no evidence that any substantial readers would benefit from this extra disambiguation. 53 years later, why people think of the song named "Stand By Me", they mean this one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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 2

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. 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. There is a clear consensus to retain the existing titles. And opening a new RM discussion only 2 weeks after the conclusion of the previous discussion has a disruptive effect. (I assume that there was no disruptive intent). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

---

• Stand by Me (song) → Stand by Me
• Stand by Me → Stand by Me (disambiguation)

– So we've established that it's the primary song, but is it primary over everything else? Unreal7 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - the only possible outcome of the above is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Either it's primary and it doesn't need disambiguation, or it's not and it needs disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

First choice remains Stand by Me (Ben E. King song). With Stand by Me (Oasis song) and Stand by Me (Shayne Ward song), no one benefits from having (Ben E. King song) removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

People searching for "Stand by Me" by Earl Grant, Spyder Turner, David & Jimmy Ruffin, John Lennon, Mickey Gilley, Maurice White, Playing for Change, Prince Royce (all US chart hits) or any of the other 600 or so versions (including numerous international chart hits)—and who might not be familiar with King's original—potentially benefit from the omission of "Ben E. King (song)". Nobody benefits from adding it. But, as that RM has already failed, we shouldn't be debating it again here. This RM should fail because the song is not PT over the film, which would make the move an unambiguous guideline violation. Pstoller (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - We have just established above that Stand by Me (song) needs no further disambiguation. Neither does Stand by Me (film); however, the relative fame of both makes moving this page (or that one) to Stand by Me problematic. As it stands, if someone searches for just "Stand by Me," then they go to the DAB page, which is by far the most practical arrangement. Now, if you want to propose moving that DAB page to Stand by Me (disambiguation) with redirects there from Stand by Me—and no other moves—then that's fine; but, this is not the place for that RM. Pstoller (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose; the song is clearly the primary song for that title, but as against the film, there is no primary topic for the title "Stand By Me". bd2412 T 02:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:BD2412 I think the problem, as discussed many times, is that "primary song" goes against normal practice in the rest of the encyclopedia. [Topic (foo)] usually indicates (only foo with an article). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have difficulty in following the logic of a primary song/film/book/etc. of a title that may have a significant meaning in another medium or field? Which is the better approach: to bend practice to conform to sense, or to bend sense to conform to practice? Pstoller (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And I would imagine anyone who is familiar with how the rest of wikipedia works would find these 2 or 3 song articles greatly confusing. It isn't really "common sense" either since the title says DON'T LOOK FOR ANOTHER SONG ... but we do have other songs. This (song) dab is the worst of all worlds. It fails WP:DAB, fails WP:TITLE and helps no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The hat note says to look for other songs of the same title at the DAB page. I would argue that this is the best of all possible worlds, providing the best and clearest help, but we're clearly not going to agree. Pstoller (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We may agree later. I would ask that those who think (song) is helpful please consider users who find articles via the right hand top autofill. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I use that feature all the time. It's a significant part of why I feel as I do. Pstoller (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment the previous move will succeed some day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The film is more likely to be the primary topic; this should be Stand by Me (Ben E. King song). Peter James (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment only. My support is still for Stand by Me (Ben E. King song). One only has to look at the convolution caused by this nomination to realise the RM1 was the better choice. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't necessarily oppose this move but I don't see the evidence that this is the primary topic over the film and all other uses. However, among the songs, it's so much more prominent than the others that the current title is a good WP:IAR name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cúchullain, it's not primary topic over the film; the film article has more traffic. Ergo, the proposed move is a bad one according to Wikipedia guidelines. Pstoller (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pstoller, thanks for that based on the page view evidence. I'm switching to oppose; to be clear I also oppose a move to Stand by Me (Ben E. King song); this song is far and away the most popular song called "Stand by Me"; readers aren't served if we pretend otherwise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cúchullain. All WP:IAR says is "I am right and you are wrong" Nothing I would wish to base an opinion on. Sweet Nothing, you might say! A guideline supported by a policy carries a little more weight for me. Occasionally, like here, the guidelines are ignored, but, fortunately, not often these days. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Richhoncho, unfortunately the policies guidelines are ignored whenever we move an article to an over-disambiguated title despite a lack of ambiguous articles. That's been happening a good bit lately. In this case, as I showed in the last RM, such a large majority of readers looking for a song called "Stand by Me" are looking for this song that we shouldn't manufacture another hoop to send them through. This solution is a bit atypical, but it's certainly not unheard of; Lucky Star (song); Thriller (album), etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't you mean Thriller (Michael Jackson album)? - it is clearly now in the place recommended by WP:NCM. Let's be honest and clear, anybody wanting to find the Thriller album by Michael Jackson will find it quicker, which is why NCM says what it does and eschews primarytopic. It's only a few people who think primarytopic (which is a good guideline in many instances) should be rolled out in each and every circumstance that do the damage to WP. Then those editors quote IAR. I note you have changed to oppose merely to stop a move to Ben E. King song, which wasn't going to happen this time anyway. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Richhoncho, Cúchullain did not change to Oppose "merely to stop a move to Ben E. King song"; he changed "based on the page view evidence" that the article is not primary over "Stand by Me (film)". He added that he also opposes the move proposed in the prior RM, but did not offer that as his reason for opposing this one.

If we're truly to be honest and clear: nobody had any trouble finding the article for Thriller before "Michael Jackson" was appended to its title. For reasons stated during the last RM discussion, that was an improper move, in direct violation of WP:TITLECHANGES in terms of both rationale and procedure. It is also, as previously stated, not "clearly now in the place recommended by WP:NCM," as NCM disparages unnecessary disambiguation—of which "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" could serve as a textbook example. Pstoller (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that you, Pstoller. I don't know how much clearer I can be. After seeing the page view evidence I oppose moving the song to Stand by Me, as it's not the primary topic of "Stand by Me". In addition I also oppose the other suggested move to Stand by Me (Ben E. King song) for the reasons I've explained multiple times: of songs, this one's so much more commonly sought than the others that it's unhelpful to send all readers to a dab page just because that solution works in other cases. By Thriller (album) I meant, of course, that the title goes to the Michael Jackson album, which is what the vast majority of readers seeking an album called "Thriller" want - just as most readers searching for a song called "Stand by Me" intend this song.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are, of course, right, nobody had any trouble finding the Michael Jackson album - but nor did people who did not want the Michael Jackson album. Hence WP:NCM. But again, there's little point me wasting time here, fortunately the majority appear to be appreciate the guidelines and why they are a little different for common phrases/titles. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As "Thriller (album)" redirects to "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)"—a clear indication that the latter is considered primary for the former—people who do not want the Jackson article are as likely to arrive at it by mistake as before the RM.

I'm sorry you feel that your time here has been wasted: perhaps if you had weighed in on the merits of the current RM, rather than only on the prior one (to which I have also paid undue attention), you would have found reason to feel otherwise. Either way, it's uncivil to imply that anyone who interprets the guidelines differently than you do fails to appreciate them. Pstoller (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@PstollerHaving noted that the previous RM had decided that this was primarytopic, then it is reasonable that it shouldn't be further disabiguated by (song). I do not agree with the present title, nor with the proposed title, I commented accordingly for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who has followed both RMs. I never expected, especially in the light of RM1, that it would be moved to Ben E. King with this nomination. Are you suggesting that I was wrong to comment? Your accusation of me being pointy over guidelines is not true, I am referring to policy which some people think doesn't apply to them and then quote Thriller (album) at me. You should also see for reference, Talk:Sweet Nothing (Calvin Harris song) and perhaps, just to see something recent that none of us here are involved in, see Talk:Goodness Gracious (Ellie Goulding song). There are literally 1000s of more examples and a few, like this article title, that do not follow the community wishes. Under the circumstances I thought I was civil and you should have assumed good faith. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What we have is a fairly small group of editors encouraging these changes at select articles, though they're out of step with the greater policies and guidelines on article titles and disambiguation. Naturally this results in discussion. Especially in cases like this, where rigid adherence to the guideline would make it harder for readers to find what they want. That should never happen, and Thriller (album) and Lucky Star (song) are similar examples where the community has recognized that point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And this is what is frustrating - you do not accept the community does not agree with you ("a select few out of step", blah, blah blah); The policy, Wikipedia:Article titles does not agree with you; WP:SONGDAB does not agree with you; you close RMs opposite to the consensus. You do not accept that anybody looking for the Thriller album will find it easier if it says "Michael Jackson" as part of the title... And then it's ignore all rules - because it suits you. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's really rich that you leave "Let's cease" as the edit summary of a comment where you continue to make silly jabs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out an editor has no concern or regard for guidelines, policy or consensus is not "silly jabs" - it's just a shame it was necessary. Now you can respond again, if you so wish. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a silly and pointless jab to say that editors who have slightly different interpretations of the disambiguation guidelines than you do have "no concern or regard" for them. It's telling that you have to resort to this level of silliness whenever someone has a well-reasoned disagreement with you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between interpretation and an outright refusal to accept a community decision. If you are not the editor who closed Sweet Nothing with disregard to consensus with the reference to WP:PRECISION which reads, "... titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." then I would apologise. Again, I repeat there are no "silly jabs" and if you were prepared to pay attention to consensus or to consider your actions there would be no reason for anybody to bring the matter up, would there? You, sir, are your own worst enemy. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha, you get called out for your rude tactics and your only answer is more of the same. You're not doing your position any favors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What? You really do believe you are always right? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer a little less heat and a little more light, though I don't know that I can accomplish that. First, Richhoncho, what the failure of the previous RM established is that—at least in the view of the majority of participating editors—this article is PT for "Stand by Me (song)". That was the only point at issue with that RM. The imminent failure of this RM will establish that this article is not PT for "Stand by Me"; likewise, the only point at issue.

I see no logic in the presumption that a primary term in one category must be primary for all categories. There is a long tradition of partially disambiguated articles on Wikipedia being regarded as primary at their level of disambiguation. This includes, but is not limited to, song titles and album titles. There is also a long tradition of debate about whether that is proper (see: WP:PDAB). We apparently are on opposite sides of that debate, and it seems very unlikely that either of us will sway the other.

What both sides need to acknowledge is that this issue remains unresolved: there is no consensus about the proper interpretation of the relevant guidelines. So, any claim that articles or editors adhering to one view "do not follow the community wishes" is blatantly false, and unhelpful at best.

There are relatively few PDAB PTs because there are relatively few articles that meet the criteria, not because the status is unrecognized or unsupported. It should go without saying—but apparently does not—that a standard such as "Stand by Me" occupies a different strata from recent pop hits such as "Sweet Nothing" and "Goodness Gracious," so those are meaningless citations with regard to the current article and RM. It should also go without saying that all RMs are subject to "luck of the draw" regarding which editors show up to debate and vote; thus, the result of any RM is only conclusive of that RM (if of anything at all).

While you are free to argue that AT and SONGDAB "do not agree with you," you should respect the fact I, Cúchullain, Tbhotch, and many others have read those guidelines and policies as throughly as you have, and we have come to the opposite conclusion. We have supported that conclusion with extensive (arguably, excessive) citation of policies, guidelines, and data, which you should also respect—and refute with same, if you can.

Instead, having failed to convince the majority in the prior RM, you entered the discussion of this RM purely as a soapbox to prolong discussion of the last, and then issued a snide "departing" jab to disparage the abilities and/or intent of those with whom you disagree. Nothing about that dismissive remark warrants an assumption of good faith. There is no editor here who "has no concern or regard for guidelines, policy or consensus," and so "pointing out" otherwise is not merely unnecessary, but patently uncivil. Conversely, I might observe that IAR is a guideline, and yet you disparage it and those who follow it; civility is a policy, and yet you have (arguably) ignored it when it suited you; the prior RM failed to achieve consensus, and yet you continue to argue for it after it has closed. Should I therefore "point out" that you "have no concern or regard for guidelines, policy or consensus"?

In fact, I believe you are greatly and properly concerned about all those things. We simply disagree about what the correct outcome of those concerns should be, both generally and in the specific case of the prior RM for this article. Well, you know, that's going to happen. And it happens that people who are committed to a point of view get swept up in a moment of frustration and say things that are ill-advised—but hardly criminal, nor even grudge-worthy. It is also likely to happen that you and I will end up on the same side of a different argument—at which point we should both be glad to have someone else arguing the same case with both passion and reason, but perhaps a different set of rationales, adding up to a more compelling argument than either of us might make on his own. I, for one, look forward to that day. I hope I am not alone. Pstoller (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a long comment fully read, but neither you, nor Cuchullain, have bothered to actually comment on what I have said, just to repeat I am using "silly jabs" and "rude tactics" hence there is no conversation. As all three of us agree that it's not going to Ben E. King this time around, the two of you should be satisfied with that. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The previous discussion concerning this article reached no consensus earlier this month. Reopening the topic, albeit from a different angle, was probably ill-advised. As between the film and the song, there is no primary topic, so the current title should remain. Xoloz (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

Relationship to earlier songs

We now have an article on Stand by Me (Charles Albert Tindley song), which was recorded by the Staple Singers in the 1950s. This article suggests a direct link between that earlier spiritual - via another song, "Stand By Me Father" recorded by Sam Cooke with the Soul Stirrers - to this Ben E. King song. According to that article, King "took Stand By Me from an old gospel song that was recorded by Sam Cooke and the Soul Stirrers", and took it to Leiber and Stoller who "gave Stand By Me a pop sheen, with Stoller devising the instantly recognisable bassline." Without wanting to get involved in awkward questions over credits and authorship, should this link be reflected in this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

An earlier version of this Wikipedia article referenced the Tindley song; editors decided that the two songs were not sufficiently related, and removed the reference. Now, it's back. King certainly did more than just "(take) it from an old gospel song": the chords and harmonic rhythm, the melody, the song structure, the lyrics—all are substantially different. Much of that was King's work before he brought it to Leiber & Stoller. At least the phrase "inspired by" in the lede is much better than "based on" or "taken from." That said, the quote in that Guardian article is from King himself, so while he may have been speaking carelessly, I think it's fair to link to it. The article is not completely reliable, however: for example, it claims that both Sam Cooke and the Fugees covered "Stand By Me," neither of which is true. It also draws some highly dubious connections to "Train in Vain" and "Stand by Your Man," as if the mere appearance go the phrase, "stand by (me)," is enough to link the songs together. So, perhaps a better idea is to link to the radio interview from which the Guardian's Marcus Gray sourced his Ben E. King quote. Note that, in the interview, King goes on to say that "I kind of snuck that 'stand' bit out, and I started writing, and the song more or less wrote itself," implying that all he really "took" from the Tindley song was the title.

Alas, King has told several variations on the story over the years, and it's hard to suss out which of his memories are accurate. King recalls that he didn't even show the song to L&S until the end of the recording session—in the linked interview, he said they had "a few seconds left"; however, it's not plausible that not only was the song rewritten, but that arrangements were written and parts were copied and distributed in time to record the song on a date with only a short time left on the clock after cutting the first three sides. In the linked interview, King says it was a "head arrangement," but even the rhythm section is meticulously arranged, never mind the strings. (King also recalls that the "zip" percussion sound was produced by an overturned snare drum, while Mike Stoller recalls that it was a güiro.) King sometimes recalls that the session was scheduled for the Drifters, but the group missed the date because of bad weather; however, King was already out of the Drifters, and records show the weather was clear that day. In the linked radio interview, King recalls rehearsing the song with the Drifters, and the group's manager turning the song down because they didn't need any more material. Again, King was already out of the Drifters by this time; and it would likely have been producers Leiber & Stoller (and perhaps Atlantic execs Ahmet Ertegün and Jerry Wexler), rather than Drifters manager George Treadwell, who would decide what songs the group would record. King may well have hoped the Drifters would record the song, because his solo career hadn't taken off yet and he needed the money; but as his co-writers Leiber & Stoller were producing both acts, the Drifters may not have heard the song until King's record came out.

So, even "the horse's mouth" may not be the best source. Still, I'd say it's better than Marcus Gray. Pstoller (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Time?

The "Structure" section does not give the time. Is it 4-4?137.159.184.234 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I note that some versions have been removed because they lack "notability". In this case notability seems to depend on contemporary (to release) chart position, particularly US.

I am choosing to leave the Muhammad Ali version in, because a single released by Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali is notable in the context of American Modern history.

However I regret that the Cantonese versions were removed, they were from artists who have English wikipedia pages, therefore they, the artists, are not only notable in the Cantonese-speaking world, but also the English world.

I also note that as for many items in Wikipedia, US "things" are regarded as "normal", while non-US are variant. I.E. "this version peaked at #20 on the Hot 100", "It was his eighth #1 on the country charts and also reached #22 on the Hot 100", "number 6, 11 and 50 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks, Adult Contemporary", "peaked No. 8 on Hot Latin Tracks and No. 1 on Tropical Airplay". These are not some sort of global chart, these are US things and should be labelled as such.

While it is the responsibility of editors to display "notability" of items, I get the feeling all to often that non-US related items are undervalued. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:COVERSONG. Essentially, cover versions should be included be included if and only if the cover would pass WP:NSONG by itself. For most songs, this means charting.

With the exception of the Ali cover, all of the covers listed have cites for charting. The Ali claims chart performance, but needs a source (the source I removed was an apparent copyright violation).

Whether or not the artist who recorded the cover is notable or not is irrelevant. A throw-away B-side by a major artist probably won't pass, a minor hit by an otherwise non-notable artist probably will. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SummerPhDv2.0 for this clarification and dialogue.

Continuing this talk on notatbility, I do note that in WP:NSONG, the first criteria for notability does not relate to charts, but to discussion in published works, in other words a song need not have charted. Also in the same guideline is a criteria that "[the song] Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." This seems to me to open the list of cover songs to musicians who are notable, in other words have Wikipedia pages. I personally agree with this, and it does seem to the norm on most song pages I have visited. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to put the following in context: the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song. This is a quote from WP:COVERSONG, which parallels the published works criteria above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic (talk • contribs) 09:00, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, songs can be notable without charting. (For most songs, though, charting is the indication of notability.) Yes, having been covered by numerous notable artists can establish the assumption of notability. The song is notable.

We are trying to establish inclusion of the cover versions of the song. Covers which have charted are notable. To qualify otherwise, WP:COVERSONG suggests including those that meet WP:NSONG and those "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song". I do not see how a rendition can be "covered by numerous notable artists". This leaves us with looking for a reliable source on the subject of the song that discusses the cover. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Recordings, versions, not covers, Anonymous changes to text

66.162.249.170 changed several key words. They emphasize that recordings of this songs are often unique versions, rather than attempts to cash in on the style of the previous versions or attempts at slavish homage. think this is a good way to look at peoples playing others works. The classical, "folk" and "traditional" music worlds approach the works like this. Thank you for the changes. Brunswicknic (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2017

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: moved per consensus —usernamekiran(talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Stand by Me (song) → Stand by Me (Ben E. King song) – Nearly four years have passed since the previous RM's attempt to revise this incomplete disambiguation along with a closely followed subsequent nomination to position this title as the primary topic. The disambiguation is still incomplete. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:INCDAB. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:INCDAB. see "Stand by Me" (Atomic Rooster song), "Stand by Me" (Charles Albert Tindley song), "Stand by Me" (Oasis song), "Stand by Me" (Shayne Ward song), no reason to hide Ben E. King's name. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:CRITERIA. The current title, Stand by Me (song) is easily recognized as being the famous Stand by Me song that everyone knows. By disambiguating it with the obscure composer's name (obscure relative to the notoriety of the song), the topic of the article suddenly becomes less clear and less recognizable. Compared to the proposed title, the current title is more recognizable, more natural, just as precise (only the Stand By Me could reasonably be expected to be disambiguated with just "song"), more concise and perfectly consistent with how other extremely well known songs are disambiguated. --В²C ☎ 02:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. consistency and recognisability. There are so many many "Stand by Me"s that even the most famous lose recognisability, therefore add information to every title for consistency and recognisability.

Titles found by searching "Stand by Me":

• • Stand by Me (film)
  • Stand by Me (song)
  • Stand by Me Doraemon
  • You Stand by Me
  • Stand by Me (Oasis song)
  • Train in Vain (Stand by Me)
  • Stand by Me
  • Stand by Me (1995 film)
  • Stand By Me (Grey's Anatomy)
  • Stand by Me: The Ultimate Collection
  • Dildaara (Stand by me)
  • Stand by Me (Shayne Ward song)
  • Stand by Me (The Brilliant Green song)
  • Stand by Me (TV series)
  • Stand by Me (My Little Pony)
  • Stand By Me (McLeod's Daughters)
  • Stand by Me (Whatcha See Is Whatcha Get)
  • Stand by Me (Charles Albert Tindley song)
  • Stand by Me (Ernest Tubb album)
  • Stand by Me (Atomic Rooster song)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

All of the songs in that list (which is all that is relevant to this discussion) are totally obscure compared to this one. This is the quintessential primary topic for Stand by Me (song). --В²C ☎ 06:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) have already rejected the notion of PRIMARYSONG, that (song) can be an exception to the general rule that (parenthetical dabs) do not have primary topics. See also @Erik:'s discussion with this user ☎ explaining the difference between PRIMARYTOPIC and PRIMARYFILM re use of the (film) dab in an RM last week and on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#“Primary_film”. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the comments in the recent Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive_54#RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles be worth considering as well. While the main notion is about disambiguation against non notable songs the impact on if they were notable is brought up. PaleAqua (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

First, though I understand the logic behind it, I continue to disagree with the position that a partially disambiguated title cannot have a primary topic. It would be perfectly reasonable and unremarkable for Titanic (film) to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the article about the 1997 blockbuster, or indeed to be the title of that article. All other films named Titanic are obscure compared to this one. Currently, this title redirects to a non-existent section at the Titanic dab page. Second, films and songs are different in that the disambiguator for films is universally recognized (a numeric year), while the disambiguator commonly used for songs is often a virtually unknown artist. As I noted above, Stand By Me (song) is simply more recognizable (and more concise) than Stand by Me (Ben E. King song) - there is no reason to look for more specific guideline guidance when direction from policy (WP:CRITERIA) is already so clear, and for very good reasons. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Although the Titanic (disambiguation) page does have a sub-section header "Films", the current redirect, as noted above, flows to the non-existent Titanic (disambiguation)#Film instead of to Titanic (disambiguation)#Films and should be adjusted. As for the subject at hand, since the link Stand by Me (song) currently flows directly to the song, it continues to be not a redirect, but a direct link. Rather than WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, the specific guideline in this case would be WP:INCOMPDAB because most users headed to the Ben E. King song are not expected to type, "Stand by Me (song)", but will most likely just type, "Stand by Me" and then sort it out at the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose My reading of WP:INCDAB is that it applies in cases where there is still ambiguity. In this case it is pretty clear by searching that this is the song that is the most recognizable by this name. I did some quick searching of online streaming services and it seems to be pretty clear in that regards and thus supports a WP:CRITERIA argument towards this being the primary song especially considering consider. If INCDAB is intended to cover cases where the parenthetically disambiguated titles have a primary topic it would be nice if it was clearer instead of just taking about what happens with a disambiguation page that would otherwise be at the title. PaleAqua (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@PaleAqua: surely "it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page" means Stand By Me as main disambiguation page? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support, but keep this as the primary topic that "Stand By Me (song)" redirects to. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:INCDAB, especially when considering "Stand by Me" (Oasis song), which was a #2 hit in the UK. There are four other songs with separate articles that are listed at Stand by Me, and also various other songs discussed in other articles. Including the artist name in the title of a song article is generally helpful to readers. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

When? Dates?

It says in the "Song Information" section: "After the 'Spanish Harlem' recording session..."

When was this? How long before then had he composed it?

There should be more date information in many articles, this one included. "What" is important but "when" gives context. Ileanadu (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the article on the song, "Spanish Harlem," and saw that it was recorded in 1960, so I added that info. I first thought it was referring to a recording made in Spanish Harlem, the geographic area, but then I went to the link and realized it referred to the song. Ileanadu (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

confusing wording

I don't know if it's technically correct, but "the former work" in the following is very confusing. Is it the song mentioned first? Recorded first?

″According to King, the title is derived from, and was inspired by, a spiritual written by Sam Cooke and J. W. Alexander called "Stand by Me Father," recorded by the Soul Stirrers with Johnnie Taylor singing lead. The third line of the second verse of the former work derives from Psalm 46:2c/3c.[2]″

ProfessorAndro (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Too many infoboxes?

Of course, multiple artists have covered the song, like John Lennon. However, I thought that having so many infoboxes in the introduction would cause editing issues. If viewed on mobile web (expanded) or mobile app (collapsed by default), a reader would see too many in the introduction before reading the article further. Which infoboxes are needed? Which infoboxes are not needed? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You're quite right, it's ludicrous. There doesn't seem to be any guidance on this at MOS:INFOBOX, though it's been discussed on the talk page there in the past. Personally, I would only include the infobox for the Ben E. King version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I eliminate both the Maurice White and the 4 the Cause infoboxes. I also rearranged other infoboxes, then expanded the "other notable versions" section and separated some portions into individual sections, i.e. John Lennon and Playing for Change. George Ho (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

That is an improvement - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Release of John Lennon's version

Because Lennon's version debuted at #78 on the Hot 100 on 15 March 1975 and Billboard had already constructed that chart more than a week before, therefore Lennon's version must have been released prior to 10 March 1975.98.149.97.245 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Otis Redding

What about the Otis Redding version? Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mentions of several 1960s versions of the song were removed from the article earlier this year, on the basis of WP:SONGCOVER. But I think the fact that Redding covered it is notable, so I've reinstated it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bollywood version

We should include a mention of the bollywood version, called Dildaara, and featured in the "Ra One" film of 2011. Forich (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether the bollywood version is worth mentioning, even with a book's brief mentioning and Bollywood Life's. I tried other sources without avail. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, apparently the album and the song did very good on India's charts in 2011. Forich (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That's just an author's opinion to me. Also, trivially mentions the song as part of an album review. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Me tota me tota poems

Hidi poem 103.7.61.59 (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)