Talk:Leaving Here (Motörhead song)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Motörhead-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Motörhead, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Motörhead, their members, associates, albums, characters and songs. You can help! Visit the project page, discuss an article at the project talk-page, or even join us! |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] Edits
- Source for first single as re-release para' Alf 20:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Removed song lyrics as potential copyvio - emailed motorhead official website 'talk to band' and asked the man himself for his permission. Alf 21:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Top of the Pops appearance listed in "The Illustrated Collectors Guide to Motorhead" page 31. Alf 17:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Track times
Any idea where the track times came from? I've just got the Stone Deaf Forever boxset - the sleevenotes of which say that the versions of "Leaving Here" and "White Line Fever" included are from the Stiff single - and the tracks clock in at 2:33 and 2:44 respectively. (The On Parole versions of "Leaving Here" clock in at 3:01 and 2:53, and the live versions are 3:03 and 2:48. None of the versions of this song I have clock in at the 3:20 stated). --kingboyk 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
In virtually all cases, there should only be one article per composition, so I merged the sentence or so from Leaving Here (being readily familiar with the song, there's not much more that could be added to that article), and this article should be moved back there. --FuriousFreddy 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I feel that in principle there should be an article about the Holland-Dozier-Holland song and this one about the single released by Motorhead. In this particular case the current state is that there is more information in the article about the single than about the song so I can see why it seems rational for the move. Please consider the aspect from readers point of view rather than our own routine of classifying and placing information. How are we to best serve them, the current state of how songs and singles are treated may not be consistent with the best way of getting the information the readers of the topics to them. If I were to look around for comparatives - I would point out the number of films which were based on books, the books almost always have an article for themselves, some of those articles include information on the film(s) released that were based on the book, a lot have distinct articles about the films, though in essence they are the same story, just a different 'issue' of it.--Alf melmac 06:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Further to Alf's comments which are, in essence, my thoughts entirely, where does this "should only be one article per composition" come from exactly? Is it a rule? Because I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't have any rules which are cast in stone. Was it consensus at WP:SONGS? Well, I actually have seen more against this sort of thing there, or at least a propensity towards judging an article on its own merits – something which applies to all articles, not just ones about songs. Is this just a case of it annoying someone or some people being separate? Because if it is, I really should inform you that Wikipedia is also not a paper encyclopedia – whereas a paper one probably would have the articles at least on the same page, the Wikimedia Foundation has spent vast amounts of money on providing enough space to have separate articles. Where it merits it, of course, which brings me back to the main point – I was once a wiki-newbie and I came to this place to check out a few band articles and I was not only impressed with the level of information on each subject, but the comprehensiveness of it and furthermore the ability to navigate with ease between related subjects. What I want would be to have unfettered chronological access between a band's releases – if I wanted to check out the origins of the song, I could easily click on the link to that. Let's not forget our origins, and let's remember that our main asset is our flexibility. In case it's not clear – no move – B.hotep u/t• 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The page was tagged incorrectly, I only noticed because the link provided on the article to where talk is encouraged failed to work, so I had to go check the template, it was a redirect to Move2 which is a variant of the bog-standard Move. I would like to see the merged material unmerged, put back at the song namespace, this moved to ...single, the ...song can wait until the Motown editors arrive and make it what it needs to be, there is no deadline after all.--Alf melmac 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Further to Alf's comments which are, in essence, my thoughts entirely, where does this "should only be one article per composition" come from exactly? Is it a rule? Because I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't have any rules which are cast in stone. Was it consensus at WP:SONGS? Well, I actually have seen more against this sort of thing there, or at least a propensity towards judging an article on its own merits – something which applies to all articles, not just ones about songs. Is this just a case of it annoying someone or some people being separate? Because if it is, I really should inform you that Wikipedia is also not a paper encyclopedia – whereas a paper one probably would have the articles at least on the same page, the Wikimedia Foundation has spent vast amounts of money on providing enough space to have separate articles. Where it merits it, of course, which brings me back to the main point – I was once a wiki-newbie and I came to this place to check out a few band articles and I was not only impressed with the level of information on each subject, but the comprehensiveness of it and furthermore the ability to navigate with ease between related subjects. What I want would be to have unfettered chronological access between a band's releases – if I wanted to check out the origins of the song, I could easily click on the link to that. Let's not forget our origins, and let's remember that our main asset is our flexibility. In case it's not clear – no move – B.hotep u/t• 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this page under "Leaving Here (Motörhead song)", rather than just "Leaving Here"? There isn't even a separate page for "Leaving Here", and this page talks about more than just the Motörhead version.
Sorry if this is answered somewhere above, I didn't bother reading over the whole discussion, but I didn't see anything about the page location.
--Rock Soldier 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Furious Freddy decided it in this edit. Beats me as to his logic though.--Alf melmac 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well if he doesn't explain his reasoning, shouldn't it be moved back?
-
- --Rock Soldier 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Leaving Here (song) A.jpg
Image:Leaving Here (song) A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
