Talk:Love Will Tear Us Apart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] fall out boy
love will tear us apart is also a single on fall out boy's "from under the cork tree, special edition"
[edit] Accolades
I was reading last years WOXY 500 and the song appeared on the list as number one. Should achievements like this be mentioned? After all, the radio station is fairly important one.
--213.169.3.216 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] version used in donnie darko?
I only have the recording from Substance, which sounds different than the one used in the film. Was the earlier january recording used in the movie? it sounds newer or maybe more processed
- From what I remember, it sounded like the Substance version to me --Surachit 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Apart.gif
Image:Apart.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Added broken template
I added the broken template, the edit buttons dont display properly in firefox.Operating 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 7" re-issue
The 7" reissue has another version of LWTUA on the b-side alongside "These Days". The side is 33 rpm, whereas the a-side is 45. I'm not sure precicely which version of LWTUA is on the b-side, so I haven't added it to the article yet. I'll flip through the versions in the boxed set and see if I recognise it. -- Jon Dowland 18:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, are there any other differences between the original and reissue? Drutt (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The most popular Joy Division song
LWTUA is the most popular joy division song. It is referenced correctly at a reputable website (last fm). If you believe it isn't the most popular song, provide a reference that demonstrates this. Otherwise leave the reference. Operating (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it's a verifiable source, but the opinion of listeners to one radio station in the world looks like a case of undue weight. Even with the polls mentioned under Popularity (NME's "best single" and JJJ's #1 on the Hottest 100) people are always going to have issues with this terminology. I'm quite sure it is the most popular JD song, but what's wrong with simply describing it as "a song" rather than as "the most popular song"? It's importance in their catalogue is surely apparent from the rest of the article without such blanket statements of what is, after all, a value judgment - no matter how many sources agree with it. My suggestion is that the intro describe it as "a song", and you mention the LastFM poll (clearly identifiying it as such in the paragraph) in the Popularity section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia deals in verified and pertinent statements, not your value or mine WP:verifiability. Lead sections should and do point towards the contents of the article. The popularity section dictates it be mentioned in the lead WP:Lead. Operating (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Love Will Tear Us Apart is most likely their most popular song, but again, put it in the popularity section as Last.fm is also one website, there are other websites that claim Love Will Tear Us Apart is a terrible song, but that doesn't go in the introduction.67.71.21.116 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Both of you have admitted that this song is their most popular and yet you still want to delete a reference that demonstrates this. That isn't logical nor adhering to the WP:MOS. The logical conclusion of leaving section details out of the lead is that the lead will say "This is a song" and nothing more. Operating (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I admitted that I believe it is their most popular song, but that isn't up to us 3 or one website to decide, should I post links to reviews saying it's a bad song and add that to the intro of the article? Obviously not65.94.119.168 (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know what WP:verifiability is? You can't find a reputable source which says LWTUA is a bad song. A reference demonstrating it is the most popular song is already in situ. So which do we leave? Not a difficult question to answer. Operating (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can't source Last.fm for this because the link is not claiming that "Love Will Tear Us Apart" is the most popular Joy Division song, since the site's purpose is to only track plays by Last.fm users. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're right it isn't a difficult question, just like Wesley states, Last.fm doesn't even state it's the most popular song. Give it up man if you think Last.fm is the final say on popularity... 65.94.119.168 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can't source Last.fm for this because the link is not claiming that "Love Will Tear Us Apart" is the most popular Joy Division song, since the site's purpose is to only track plays by Last.fm users. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know what WP:verifiability is? You can't find a reputable source which says LWTUA is a bad song. A reference demonstrating it is the most popular song is already in situ. So which do we leave? Not a difficult question to answer. Operating (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I admitted that I believe it is their most popular song, but that isn't up to us 3 or one website to decide, should I post links to reviews saying it's a bad song and add that to the intro of the article? Obviously not65.94.119.168 (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Both of you have admitted that this song is their most popular and yet you still want to delete a reference that demonstrates this. That isn't logical nor adhering to the WP:MOS. The logical conclusion of leaving section details out of the lead is that the lead will say "This is a song" and nothing more. Operating (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Love Will Tear Us Apart is most likely their most popular song, but again, put it in the popularity section as Last.fm is also one website, there are other websites that claim Love Will Tear Us Apart is a terrible song, but that doesn't go in the introduction.67.71.21.116 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia deals in verified and pertinent statements, not your value or mine WP:verifiability. Lead sections should and do point towards the contents of the article. The popularity section dictates it be mentioned in the lead WP:Lead. Operating (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Covers
Is it of interest to include cover versions of the song on this page? Susanna and the Magical Orchestra did an interesting version of it (album: "Melody Mountain" released 2006). Jimjamjak (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Nouvelle Vague and Fall Out Boy have both done pretty popular covers of the song —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzie11 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
