1249:. "Beautiful Day" was one of my next targets for improvement. My fear is that the little amount of information available now will just be dumped into this article and left here with minimal editing over time, stagnating as the rest of the article improves. The article could never achieve GA or FA if that were the case. The WikiProject focuses on U2's material, not on covers or tributes by other artists. And I think it is utterly unfair for a cover with almost zero information to just be dumped in here and left while the U2 WikiProject is working harder than it ever has before to make every article halfway decent. Again, that is only part of the reasoning, but a valid one nonetheless. I would much rather see the cover get its own article before a section with minimal and skeletal information at best is just stuck in here to rot for a lengthy period of time before it is eventually removed and left unnoticed as the cover fades from the public's conscious. Work on the points I brought up above; I'll even assist you if I can find enough time. I'll gladly create a sandbox for it in the interim so that it can be worked on. That is the information that is needed before we can seriously consider integrating it into this article; and if it reaches that point, it should be ready for it's own article in any case.
1127:"I am going to merge ..." Way to discuss things. You want it done your way and so it shall be done! Aspects, did you not chide Melicans for what you consider the same behaviour? There is mentioned, a dedicated section, and its own article. The latter two should meet WP:NSONG. NoĂśne is objecting to the content being included in a manner that is in keeping with the style of the rest of the article and the standard presentation of notable cover versions. As the separate article stands, i vote nay. A quote from a cover artist saying it is not really a song befitting him and his genre is just wrong to include in passing on the article about the song. That would work on his article or if it comes to it a properly titled article for his cover of the song, which by the way should not indicate it is Lee's song since he most certainly did not write it.
1536:
this moment (though I will note that by deeming your own arguments to be of better quality than those by myself and
Deliriousandlost, there is an inherant bias in your conclusion that there is an established consensus). I have already explained numerous times what I believe the threshold to be for a full subsection to be included. Success is not enough; it needs information to go along with that success. Right now that information is non-existant. I thoroughly explained what is needed in my opinion a few days ago, at the same time that I offered to collaborate with you on a sandbox version so that it could reach that threshold. I've listed what I believe the point of acceptability to be numerous times over the last few days. I suggest you take another look. I am afraid that I simply don't see why you are shunning or otherwise ignoring
1049:(outdent)This is a notable cover version of the song and will chart on next week's Billboard chart, which would be enough for the song to have its own article, so it should be able to have its own section on this article. Cover versions should not have their own article and that information should be merged into the original version article. I have a bigger problem with your actions, MelicansMatkin, you make three reversions in a 24-hour period, and then to avoid making that fourth you go to page protection to get your preferred version protected claiming this is a content dispute, but you made no effort to discuss here on the talk page until after you had asked for page protection. I also find it hypocritical to say the version cannot be mentioned here because it does not pass
1603:
a little more closely with the helpfully provided link in my last reply, you would see what I said is needed. When all those are addressed, it will be enough. I'm really starting to wonder what the point of continuing this debate is when you are continuously skipping over my points and recommendations. And I note that you're still completely ignoring my offer of collaboration so that we can actually build something that is worth adding. Considering how eager you are for the cover to have it's own section, I really can't see why you are continuing to ignore this when I am offering you the help in getting it instated. Why do you keep ignoring my offer of collaboration? Add the templates and categories back if you wish it; that guideline clarifies the rationale for their inclusion.
1805:. So all of the information about the writing of the song is just as legitimately information about the Lee DeWyze recording of the song as it is about the U2 recording or any other recording. If there was to be a separate article just about DeWyze's recording of the song there would be just as legitimate a reason to have a section with the several paragraphs about the writing of the song there as there would be in an article that was dedicated to just the U2 recording. (Imagine for a moment that the song was written by, just to pick a random example, Elvis Costello instead of by U2 but never recorded by him. It would still be legitimate to have all of the information about how the song was written even if none of it refers to a performing artist. The article is about the
1242:
for a subsection: Who selected the song as a possibility? Why did Lee DeWyze choose it over the other possible songs? What influenced his decision? What was his opinion of the original song, and did that play a role in his selection? What was the reaction when people found out his choice, and how did they feel after the performance? Who came up with the arrangement? Why did they elect to use violins instead of more traditional rock instruments? Who sang the backing vocals? Get in as much detail from as many different perspectives as possible. Then it will be ready for not just a subsection, but an article in it's own right.
977:. Not all of the WP:OTHERSTUFF you cite is written to a comparable standard; Hallelujah and The Climb are. The U2 song articles aim to be more than release info, track listing and charting. Beautiful Day is one of the U2 songs that is developed beyond that level. Hence any cover given its own section should be substantially filled out and properly referenced. As of writing this that can not be done. If the cover becomes as popular as you predict the article will be revised accordingly. For now there is not even a reference for Lee DeWyze's cover in the list of covers. Everything in its due time.
281:
263:
1633:
and downloaded the episode. I watched the performance on Access
Hollywood's website. I was thoroughly unimpressed by what i heard. I'm one person. Clearly other people, even Simon, liked it. Write a sandbox page as a proposal that we may consider it. It is likely not going to be as comprehensive as the U2 section but that would be a great model on which to base a section on Lee's cover. Right now we are mostly going on what has been put into the now redirected article and that i most certainly say no to as a section.
801:
winners and had to skim their articles to see who they are and what they have been up to. Being a winner is no guarantee of lasting success. If the cover reaches the popularity of U2+MJB's "One" then its own section and see how that grows with no prejudice to eventually being its own article if warranted at a future time. Though someone may just skip to creating the
Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze) (or Beautiful Day (Lee Dewyze)) article so watching those might be good.
161:
362:
78:
53:
352:
231:
587:
331:
1842:(3) Even if one still wants more to meet the standards required for a full stand-alone article about Lee DeWyze's recording of the song, there is a whole section in the current article called "Live performances". It would be easy to fill out as full a section for DeWyze, citing the fact that he performed it on the final Idol show, his performance of a different arrangement on the
745:, an article should not exist if there is not enough information to demonstrate it's notability. This includes no charting, no recording or composition history, etc. For me this applies to sections within other articles as well. If there are only two short sentences that are devoid of any useful or important information or context, there should not be a section for it We have
151:
124:
22:
1223:. It consists of two sentences and a brief quote. That is not enough for inclusion in this article in my book; not yet. To me, if it warrants enough information for a subsection then it should also be able to survive as it's own article. Perhaps that seems unfair, but they are the strict standards we are trying to build as we put out song articles; it's the reason why "
1929:. So the fact that U2 wrote it is important to include in the article. The fact that U2 recorded it and played it live and had chart success is important to include in the article. But the fact that Lee DeWyze has now recorded, notably played live, and had notable chart success with it means that this is important to include as well. Without it an article about the
1517:, then it deserves its own section in this article as is done for other cover versions everywhere else on Knowledge. Your argument, in my opinion, seems to be that no matter how successful the cover version is that it would never have its own section. At what point would you think it is acceptable for the DeWyze version to have its own section?
1219:". The U2 WikiProject applies the same standard to subsections for covers as it does for standalone articles; it's a general consensus built among the members over the years as some covers have been integrated into the articles. I do not believe that there is enough material to warrant such a subsection at this time, judging by the content on
2021:
was his opinion of the original song, and did that play a role in his selection? What was the reaction when people found out his choice, and how did they feel after the performance? Who came up with the arrangement? Why did they elect to use violins instead of more traditional rock instruments? Who sang the backing vocals?
961:"Beautiful Day". Quite the opposite. When the guys who edit the U2 set their sights on a song, be it a single or a b-side, their aim is to make it a featured article. They are probably the most comprehensive song articles i have read. They are always being expanded. When a popular cover comes along it goes onto the
1313:. As I've continuously said, I'm not adverse to a brief mention in this section. But judging by all the different versions of the article and all the different additions that have been made, this is all the content that there is thus far that is worth merging. A subsection and infobox would be complete overkill.
895:; that other previous winners have had their first singles get their own articles has no bearing on this discussion. There is no point in having even a section if there is no information to go into it beyond "this was the first release by Lee DeWyze. It was released on this date. It charted at number __."
2032:
himself and the song no justice by performing it. Still, i have never been in favour of excluding it because i can't stand it. All anyone wants is content to go with an infobox. By some i have a low standard at saying the section on MJB's cover of One could be used to construct a section for this cover.
1925:
unwelcome intrusion. A cover is either too minor to include, and so should not be here, or it is significant enough to include in
Knowledge, but then only if it can be farmed off as a separate article. But that seems quite wrong. The article is (and now I sound like a broken record for sure) about the
1602:
notable, not that they are definitively; even NSONGS states that enough verifiable information is needed. And right now there isn't enough). That is not a consensus. I said exactly how much information is needed; not in volume perhaps, but in terms of different aspects. Perhaps if you read my remarks
1597:
I already explained why that response regarding
Consensus was vague so I'm not going to bother dredging up old territory. Just move on. We all forget or pass over things when we are tired. Everybody except me? Not quite; as I already said and as you can see by her own words, Deliriousandlost does not
1186:
and have its own article if it were not a cover version. Since it would then be a notable cover version of a song it would have its own section in the article. If it charts what would be the objections to the cover version not having its own section as is done across
Knowledge song articles such as
650:
Can it be mentioned that some have called this song plagiarized from an A-ha song called "the sun always shines on tv" I've also heard that bono has yelled this out while playing beautiful day live I really have no knowledge on this issue, but if someone else knows anything about it i think it should
2020:
There is a lot of information lacking in the current "Beautiful Day" cover that needs to be addressed in depth before I would consider it as enough for a subsection: Who selected the song as a possibility? Why did Lee DeWyze choose it over the other possible songs? What influenced his decision? What
2017:
Having seen some of the incarnations of the article on Lee DeWyze's cover that popped up when he won AI i found it generally lacked substance. It was pretty much an infobox and a couple of sentences saying he was to/had released a cover of BD as the AI winner. Merging a barely referenced stub into a
1846:
talk show and other live performances he has made of it So with a section about the writing of the song, a section about live performances of it, and a section about chart success, it would seem there might be enough to warrant an article just based on DeWyze's recording of it. But it would still be
1705:
Firstly, it really should not matter, but I feel the need to point out that I have been a big U2 fan since I first heard of them (1983) and that I'm not at all a fan of Lee DeWyze or of
American Idol. I mention this because often people infer allegiances to "sides" from the content of their views in
1632:
Who cares if the consensus is counted or argument-based. Either way there is no obvious support for a section based on what is proposed to be in the section. Those so inclined to have a section should produce content for it. I admit i am not a fan of
American Idol. Since i last posted here i gave in
1543:
As for why I removed the templates and categories, I thought it obvious enough that no rationale was needed. If there is no information on the cover in the article than there is no reason for them to be included. Yes, I added in two sentences into "Reception and legacy", but that is hardly enough to
1454:
The two should definitely be merged. The DeWyze version does merit a mention in the U2 article because of the cultural importance of
American Idol, but it shouldn't have its own section (or infobox) unless it notably charts and additional reliable info is found. It definitely should not get its own
1216:
Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is
1181:
When I stated "...until it charts within the week when it will be merged back into this article." that was not an "ultimatum of merging it back" as
MelicansMatkin. It would an eventually that the version would get its own section in this article if it charts on the Billboard Hot 100 because then it
800:
after many years but gave up on it when they used censored lyrics on another song. Darn. I would have liked to see "Beautiful Day". List of covers is enough at this time. That doesn't even have a reference. AI seems to be a very trendy thing. Not being a fan of the show i never heard of the last two
737:
covered the song. As the winner of the program, the cover is being released as his first single. The question is whether his cover is notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. Earlier I reverted a section on his cover that contained only two sentences (essentially saying "This is his first
2248:
Therefore i have removed this. I had several discussions here but nothing happened today and i was completely ignored. I know it s about peanuts to talk about numbers. The album has sold at least 4,200,000 copies as of 2016 but the single was sold maybe 150,000 copies. Explaianetion : Sales at that
1628:
you should be able to have enough additional content to warrant a dedicated section. For this situation i would suggest when the substance of the section is equal to or longer than the corresponding infobox then it would be appropriate to have a section. This would exclude block quotes and charting
1488:
I think that is a bit presumptuous of you to declare that there is consensus for the cover to have its own section. Two (myself and deliriousandlost) are against, three (yourself, Maxime, and Wasted Time) are for and two (Tinlinkin and Albertusmagnus) are for a mention but not necessarily a section
1241:
is because U2 collaborated with her on that track. If that hadn't been the case, I don't think it would have survived in the article as long as it has. There is a lot of information lacking in the current "Beautiful Day" cover that needs to be addressed in depth before I would consider it as enough
2031:
As to "wishing it did not exist is not a good reason to exclude it from mention in an encyclopedia" that is rather presumptuous. I joined this discussion having never heard of Lee DeWyze let alone his cover because the article is in my watchlist. Having heard it i do wish it did not exist. He does
1535:
I understand the policy on consensus perfectly well, thank you very much. I was pointing out that consensus does not exist either way, so I apologize if that was not clear enough. It is late at night and I have been working for a good 12 hours, so I may be missing some points in my explanations at
1138:
U2 articles get all sorts of edits to them. Melicans is one of the fourmostfrequent contributors to U2 articles. If anyone would know the consensus, standards, and style of the project's articles it would be him. He saw the importance of this discussion so he started it himself rather than telling
1106:
article is the best place to house the information; I do not think that it belongs on this article, and I do not think that your ultimatum of merging it back after next week's charts is a good one considering that there is no consensus for that (and as you can see from the comments above, I am not
2027:
If someone who is a fan of Lee's version can address any of that then there should be sufficient for a section. The objective is to avoid having a section with an infobox and a tiny bit of prose that fills only a couple of lines. Given Lee's variations, in particular the acoustic arrangement and
1284:
As I already said multiple times I am not averse to a brief mention in the text, which would probably fit best in the Reception and legacy section. But a separate infobox and section? Absolutely not, not when there is almost zero information or content. That does not add value to the article, in
772:
I just don't see how two sentences gives a cover enough notability for a section in the article, and I don't believe that such a section should exist. Perhaps a single sentence under a "Reception and legacy" section is warranted, but certainly not a full section and infobox. I've asked (and been
1924:
issue going on here. I don't think any editors are acting like they personally (or collectively) "own" the article, but it does seem to me that there is an attitude that U2 "owns" the article because it is about a song they wrote and recorded first and so anything about any cover versions is an
1575:
Your argument is there is not enough information, but by never saying how much information would be needed, we can never know at what point you would feel a section is acceptable. It would make more sense to tag the section has needing improvement, so other editors could expand and improve the
2035:
If you notice, so much has been written about what should go in to justify a section and why a section should be included. NoĂśne has actually written a section that contains any of the suggestions and addresses any of the concerns raised here. This is a clash of standards between two projects.
753:) to list stuff like this. This cover is only being considered for inclusion right now because the finale was last night. Three or four months down the road there would be no reason to include it. Yes, there are some U2 song articles which include (or have included) covers in their articles; "
632:
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
2092:
I don't think that the amount of information is enough for a subsection to exist, and neither does Deliriousandlost. A mention in the prose, absolutely. That inclusion already exists. But those very few and very short sentences are simply not enough for a subsection to be justified.
1269:
I believe any cover versions are relevant to a song article, and their additions only add to the value and completeness of the article. In fact, if cover versions are not included in a good quality article or higher, I cannot imagine how the article should be ranked in such a way.
2160:
You idiot did you see DIGITAL ??? do you know what this does mean ? I had explained it to you several times. The single was not certified Gold for 500,000 copies but for 100,000 copies as digital sales certifications at that time (2005) were 100,000 copies and not 500,000 copies
1389:
are obscure efforts from tribute albums and the like.) The solution to the section having little text is to add coverage of his treatment of the song and the reaction it received. You can see some of this done at the article on this season's other 'coronation song',
2291:
If you would read the edit history/comments, you would see that you can manually add a sales amount to the table, but you should not be removing a valid certification just because of a sales discrepancy. Also, why don't you practice some maturity with your comments?
1966:
I love the U2 recording of this song and hate the DeWyze butchery of it, but wishing it did not exist is not a good reason to exclude it from mention in an encyclopedia. If it were, I'd actually start by erasing from all memory Frank Sinatra's bizarre butchery of
1338:), eventually that's appropriate), and what sentences need to be verified. I'm just not advocating a separate article on the cover. Even a simple redirect of the cover is no problem, provided that he is mentioned somewhere in the article as briefly as you decide.
1598:
believe it passes NSONGS, and AlbertusMagnus is currently half and half judging by the last comment they left (yes it charted, but no there is not enough information). Notability is about more than one chart position (NSONGS states that charting songs are
1099:. I moved the article in the same minute as you made your edit, and I reverted it to avoid a double redirect; there was no other alterior reason behind it. Please do not bring any further assumptions of bad faith without at least checking your facts first.
1086:
because I could see an edit war/content dispute brewing. I then immediately began this discussion by writing the opening message, which took me a good twenty minutes to do. By the time I clicked "Save page" the article had been given full protection by
1751:. In fact, often when people start new articles that do not meet the standard required for being an independent article the solution is to merge the information there into an existing article as a section of it. The link Deliriousandlost provided to
1139:
those who would seek change to start the discussion or else leave as is. Arbitrarily deciding to disregard the discussion and threatening to enforce your will at a future date will not help anything. It may draw out the rest of the project members.
773:
granted) protection of the page so that there is no content dispute while this discussion takes place. Hopefully this discussion can be resolved in the days until the protection expires so that the content dispute does not resume afterwards.
1520:
I would also like to point out that at no point do you ever explain your reversions of the American Idol templates and the categories related to Lee DeWyze's version. Is there a reason you have twice deleted these templates and categories?
1236:
I won't use the "One" cover by Mary J. Blige as a minimum threshold for a subsection because I don't think it is a particularly good example for comparison. There is little content in that subsection either; arguably the only reason it is
2080:. Should the information be included? Absolutely, and it already is. But the amount of information, a paltry four or five sentences, is nowhere near enough to warrant an individual section in the article. I could write as much on the
738:
single. It was released on this date"). No other content was present outside of an infobox. I reverted it, but was soon reverted back and so am opening this discussion to see whether the cover is notable enough for its own section.
2089:
The issue has nothing to do with whether the cover should be mentioned. It has everything to do with the amount of information about the cover, and whether a few short sentences is enough information for it to be in it's own
1289:"), but as of this moment Lee DeWyze's cover is not one of them. What little information there is could easily be reduced to three or four short sentences, and that just isn't enough to warrant it's own section and infobox.
849:
I already said that a reference to it, perhaps a sentence or two under Reception and legacy, is not something that I oppose. What I oppose is a full subsection for it because there is so little content. It's also a bit of
1205:
I'm sorry for misinterpreting it as an ultimatum, but it certainly seemed to me to be phrased in that way. As for your points, a charting would improve the notability of the cover but notability alone is not enough. From
1333:
Whatever you decide on the content of this article is fine by me, including what sections to have, whether an infobox is needed (if the single and/or Lee DeWyze becomes successful (that is, charts highly on the relevant
1419:
into this article. I cannot think of any other cover songs that have separate articles from the original, and the cover song would have to be greatly modified from the original if that were to happen in my opinion.
1759:
of sections of articles that could not stand as articles in their own right. One might even say that the very reason that something is a section of a larger article rather than an independent article is typically
1623:
Aspects, if you are counting me as in favour of the section BECAUSE of charting then you got me backwards. Charting is merely one part of developing a comprehensive section for the cover. When the cover meets
827:
The single will chart on Billboard's next chart, so there must be a refrence to it on the song's page. When people try to look the single up (and they will), there must be a reference to it on the page.
539:
I think they are actually in a taxiway (yellow line in the middle, blue lights in the edges), not in a runway. This explains how they were able to film the video (closing a runway in LFPG would have been
2084:
cover; which funnily enough, nobody has argued should be included as its own section. I repeat again, since people seem to be having an incredible amount of trouble reading or understanding my remarks:
2075:
99.192.82.65, nobody is arguing that the information shouldn't be merged. In fact I already did merge it a few days ago, as demonstrated through a link above in response to Tinlinkin. The issue is that
1884:(4) About the point about chart success, the DeWyze recording has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 almost as high as the U2 version did, and it has charted at #12 on the Billboard "Digital Songs" chart
1755:
even says that this is what should be done when independent notability fails. Furthermore, if you surf at random other Knowledge articles about just about any subject you could think of you will find
970:
754:
769:(though judging by some recent comments, this may also be split into it's own article soon). These instances are the exception where a cover is notable enough for its own section, not the norm.
1971:. But that's another issue altogether. As for this issue, I think there is more than enough notability and information available about DeWyze's recording to include a section in this article.
1540:
so that a subsection can be implemented, and why you are instead choosing to proceed with reinstating the subsection and infobox when you know full well that no consensus has been reached.
973:). At this point in time Lee DeWyze's cover has not charted, has not even been released. To create its own section or article is not in keeping with WP:CRYSTAL as the cover does not meet
1470:
There is now a consensus here that the version deserves its own section when it charts significantly and today the version debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at #24, so I am going to merge
629:
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
923:
page and do a section about the reception, the release history, charts, etc. The winners of the X Factor UK all release covers as debut single and they all have their section on pages :
878:
All the previous winner's singles of American Idol have a full page and I don't understand why this song can't only have a small section! It will surely chart on Billboard next week. --
479:"Apparently, the Edge brought the song to the band, and Bono was unsure, given his explorations into electronic music, but there was a "look" exchanged, and the song was them."
2558:
1060:
Since you seem intent on the version having no mention here and a cover version should not have its own article, I am going to merge the information and make redirect to
240:
134:
2360:
2018:
B-class article is not too pretty. To put in the section as it appeared when it was an article would mean the downgrading of the Beautiful Day article as a whole. "
2354:
2412:
2408:
2394:
1436:
1245:
The above may seem overly harsh or detailed, but it is necessary for any article. Part of my reasoning is, I will admit, based on fear. The WikiProject has done
1131:
is a disambiguation for the primary artist or composer if the title of the work itself is in need of disambiguation from something like a novel or film, such as
2518:
1579:
The American Idol templates are navigational templates that link the article and they should be listed here. The categories should be also be listed as per
211:
221:
2245:
the 500,000 copies certification of the single is not right !. At that time when Digital was certified GOLD the number of download was 150,000 copies.
2213:
in my eyes its totally ignorance not to change it. It was not certified Gold for 500,000 shipped copies but more ilkely for 100,000 sold digital copies
1394:" (which has an unrelated U2 mention in it, btw). It still isn't quite enough to soak up all the space of the infobox, but it isn't totally jarring.
610:, 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
2553:
2538:
928:
418:
408:
2528:
2470:
can someone tell me why the fact that the bridge in this song is taken from the A-ha somg "the sun always shines on rv" is sensored on this page?
607:
245:
1764:
it cannot survive on its own. So I think some are proposing too high a standard for when a section on Lee DeWyze's cover should become a section.
2563:
2044:
1663:
1166:
1022:
985:
809:
634:
626:
622:
603:
674:
Paul Oakenfold also does an electronic version of this song. It's more of a remix than a cover, though. Not sure if it should be mentioned.
183:
1285:
detracts from it. Sometimes there are covers with enough information on them to warrant such a section (such as Susan Boyle's rendition of "
558:
This story about "Always" name is interesting, but lacks of any substance, because of that, I remove it, till concerning citation be added.
2513:
2494:
2471:
2301:
2277:
2200:
2174:
2149:
2103:
2028:
altered & edited lyric, the writing of his version would be his own. If someone can reference it that would be content for his section.
1613:
1554:
1499:
1323:
1299:
1259:
1117:
905:
868:
783:
187:
1513:
then because consensus is based not vote-counting, but on the quality of arguments. One side is saying that if the cover version passes
2276:
why you ignorants don't change this ? it was certified GOLD in 2005. At that time sales for DIGITAL GOLD was not 500,000 but 100,000
2256:
1455:
article since the cover does not have enough recognition beyond the original. The current mention under Legacy is currently sufficient.
835:
638:
2533:
2223:
1972:
1386:
1000:
962:
750:
746:
707:
656:
384:
2361:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101228140631/http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html?p=9
2548:
729:
I should have known this would happen and open up this discussion sooner, but alas hindsight is 20/20. On the most recent season of
1651:
show is all over the internet now because that is the most brutal of failures. The lyric is supposed to be "Someone you could lend
1583:, since this is a notable cover version of the song. So even if there is not a section these should be added back to the article.
1091:
some five minutes prior; not the semi-protection I requested, but a step beyond. I also did not create the article for the cover;
1471:
1416:
297:
174:
129:
2355:
http://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx?title=Beautiful%20Day&winner=&year=2000&genreID=0&hp=1
2523:
2336:
1128:
1004:
940:
2271:
2543:
2364:
1489:(indeed, only one of Albertusmagnus's two criterion for a section are available). 2:3:2; hardly what I would call consensus.
758:
543:
And yes, aircraft can't takeoff or land in a taxiway like is shown in the video... Maybe we should say this in the article?--
2191:
Pro-tip: you will never make a meaningful impact on anyone in the Knowledge community with that kind of piss-poor attitude.
1706:
discussions such as these, and in this case to do so would be entirely wrong. Now, here's my 2 cents on the matter at hand.
1439:, a debate that's coming to a year now and it looks like there's no consensus. But my opnions still stand on this article.
1629:
tables. To do otherwise would be to lower the quality of the article as a whole, which should not be acceptable to anyone.
1391:
375:
336:
1544:
warrant all those templates and categories. Only when a subsection actually exists would they be necessary or warranted.
2455:
2081:
1538:
my prior offer to work in collaboration with you in an area where it will not degrade the quality of the current article
690:
33:
1887:. Surely that is notable chart success for the song and thus merits a mention somewhere in the article about the song.
1580:
288:
268:
280:
262:
2050:
1669:
1636:
Right now i might call this the most notable butchering of the lyric of a famous song that noone has picked up on.
1460:
1172:
1028:
991:
815:
741:
In my mind, two sentences is not enough notability to warrant a subsection and infobox devoted to the cover. Per
536:"...with scenes of the band playing on a runway interspliced with large jets taking off and landing overhead...".
2411:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2490:
2297:
2196:
2145:
2099:
1609:
1576:
section than it would be to reduce it to the sentences since the section already had numerous reliable sources.
1550:
1495:
1319:
1295:
1255:
1113:
901:
864:
779:
84:
58:
2475:
2281:
2178:
1385:
If the new version charts significantly, I think it merits a section in the article. (Most of the entries in
2260:
2167:
That means it was sold maybe under 100,000 copies to 499,0000 copies- And we talk about SHIPMENTS not sales
969:). If that section is expanded to the extent that it can be self sustaining it is moved to it's own article (
839:
2446:
2328:
1976:
1647:
Surely there is something more that can be said of the cover than this. Too bad that performance from NBC's
1399:
660:
2238:
RIAA Certification for 500,000 shipped copies of the single not right. Digital sales much lower before 2009
1456:
1003:
is not titled properly. There is also now disagreement about titling the separate article. Presently it is
2227:
1229:
948:
883:
711:
618:
594:
1568:
states. I feel there is a consensus since everyone else but you has stated that the version should pass
854:
to claim that it will chart when it hasn't done so yet. It's possible, but not guaranteed. And no, there
2430:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2418:
2121:
How can some claim that the song has reached Gold in the USA for shipped 500,000 copies? This is wrong.
2038:
1657:
1160:
1016:
979:
803:
39:
2327:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1564:
You counted votes and then used those numbers to justify there was no consensus, which is against what
578:
I'm not too familiar with the song, is this saying that it is the most successful single on the album?
575:"...helping to launch the album to multi-platinum status and is currently the most successful single."
686:
2385:
2252:
2219:
2170:
1188:
965:. If it gains recognition in its own right it becomes a secondary section of the respective article (
944:
920:
892:
879:
831:
678:
652:
89:
63:
598:
is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
21:
2486:
2293:
2192:
2141:
2094:
1604:
1565:
1545:
1510:
1490:
1444:
1425:
1374:
1343:
1314:
1290:
1275:
1250:
1108:
1092:
896:
859:
774:
642:
383:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
296:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2348:
1395:
1107:
the only editor who thinks so). I opened this discussion to avoid a conflict, not to enhance it.
924:
682:
599:
562:
2415:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1885:
2431:
1588:
1526:
1479:
1335:
1286:
1196:
1069:
1053:, yet you can recreate an article for that version, which would in your opinion also not pass
166:
2337:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110606234052/http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=189672
2108:
1569:
1514:
1464:
1429:
1403:
1380:
1224:
1183:
1073:
936:
932:
788:
2438:
2272:
https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=U2&ti=BEAUTIFUL+DAY
1142:"it shoots up through the stoney ground but there's no room, no space to rent in this town"
2365:
http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html?p=9
1752:
1625:
1207:
1088:
974:
179:
1797:(2) One thing that seems lost in this discussion is that the "Beautiful Day" article is
2397:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1440:
1421:
1368:
1339:
1271:
367:
2437:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
586:
2507:
2320:
2140:
U2 BEAUTIFUL DAY NOVEMBER 12, 2002 MAY 19, 2005 INTERSCOPE DIGITAL GOLD SINGLE GROUP
1968:
1921:
1238:
1132:
966:
796:
766:
762:
497:
2340:
230:
160:
1584:
1522:
1475:
1211:
1192:
1065:
1054:
1050:
855:
851:
742:
611:
514:
484:
465:
1064:, until it charts within the week when it will be merged back into this article.
2124:
In the databank of RIAA i cannot find that the song ever had sold 500,000 copies
1151:"see the bird with a leaf in her mouth, after the flood all the colours came out"
606:
as to why its use in Knowledge articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the
2404:
544:
182:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
77:
52:
2403:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1220:
1103:
1061:
734:
455:
441:
357:
351:
330:
156:
2130:
By at the beginning of the 2000s Gold was certified for 150,000 singles
178:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about
2485:
Where are the reliable sources that back up what you insist on adding?
1847:
better as a section here because, after all, this article is about the
1246:
380:
2498:
2479:
2460:
2305:
2285:
2264:
2231:
2204:
2182:
2153:
2078:
there is not enough information on the cover for a subsection to exist
2053:
1980:
1672:
1618:
1592:
1559:
1530:
1504:
1483:
1448:
1347:
1328:
1304:
1279:
1264:
1200:
1175:
1122:
1031:
994:
952:
910:
887:
873:
843:
818:
715:
694:
664:
645:
565:
547:
517:
500:
487:
468:
458:
444:
150:
123:
1247:
a lot of hard work recently on improving a good number of U2 articles
1217:
enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article
293:
1079:
I suggest you check your facts. I made the reversions and then
15:
971:
Where the Streets Have No Name (I Can't Take My Eyes off You)
755:
Where the Streets Have No Name (I Can't Take My Eyes off You)
2370:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
585:
229:
2331:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1639:
You thought you found a friend to take out of these place
919:
it and improve the section. We should do the same as the
2324:
1920:(5) Finally, I worry that there is a different kind of
1537:
1310:
1096:
1080:
1367:
When will you put the section in the article though?
1227:" has it's own article instead of a few sentences in
440:
We used to have info on their cover. What happen?--
379:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
292:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2407:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
637:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
2137:I find the following details in the RIAA database:
1743:of an article must meet the standards of being an
1145:"the traffic is stuck, you're not moving anywhere"
2341:http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=189672
1801:an article about U2. It is an article about the
87:, a project which is currently considered to be
1135:. Charting on iTunes is not meeting notability.
186:. To improve this article, please refer to the
2393:This message was posted before February 2018.
1437:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions
582:Fair use rationale for Image:Beautiful Day.jpg
464:You're right, it's not. I removed the tag. --
8:
2118:RIAA certification Gold is wrong !!!!!!!!!
999:My bad, the cover had been released. Also,
858:for mentioning it beyond what I suggested.
2559:B-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
2250:
2217:
2168:
1809:after all, not the artists who record it.)
1642:Someone you could lend in return for grace
325:
257:
118:
47:
2319:I have just modified 2 external links on
2127:It was maybe certified for Gold digital
929:Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now)
483:Yeah, I'm not sure about that either. --
1435:Upon further research, I stumbled upon
327:
259:
120:
49:
19:
1581:Knowledge:WikiProject Songs#Categories
627:Knowledge:Fair use rationale guideline
2382:to let others know (documentation at
454:Is this artical still just a stub? --
7:
1739:(1) I don't buy the argument that a
706:I found two remixes of this song. --
373:This article is within the scope of
286:This article is within the scope of
172:This article is within the scope of
83:This article is within the scope of
2519:High-importance television articles
720:
38:It is of interest to the following
1387:List of cover versions of U2 songs
1001:Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze Version)
963:List of cover versions of U2 songs
757:" was until recently part of the "
747:List of cover versions of U2 songs
14:
2323:. Please take a moment to review
2164:as of 2009 RIAA changed the rule
1509:I would suggest you read through
1148:"lend a hand in return for grace"
2242:I have asked Billboard and RIAA
1472:Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze cover)
1417:Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze cover)
1007:which is misleading since it is
625:. Using one of the templates at
360:
350:
329:
279:
261:
196:Knowledge:WikiProject Television
159:
149:
122:
76:
51:
20:
2554:Mid-importance Ireland articles
2539:WikiProject Television articles
1747:before it can be included as a
1129:Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze song)
1005:Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze song)
941:Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)
413:This article has been rated as
216:This article has been rated as
199:Template:WikiProject Television
2529:High-importance Idols articles
2232:09:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
2205:00:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
2183:10:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
1309:And I've actually gone in and
759:Where the Streets Have No Name
639:Media copyright questions page
1:
2564:All WikiProject Ireland pages
1392:Up to the Mountain (MLK Song)
695:17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
665:08:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
608:boilerplate fair use template
496:im pretty sure thats false.--
445:18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
393:Knowledge:WikiProject Ireland
387:and see a list of open tasks.
300:and see a list of open tasks.
238:This article is supported by
2461:13:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
2082:Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
967:One (U2 song)#Cover versions
749:(including a subsection for
635:criteria for speedy deletion
488:18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
396:Template:WikiProject Ireland
2514:B-Class television articles
2499:01:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
2480:00:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
1191:of "Flying Without Wings"?
716:06:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
469:22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
459:21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
306:Knowledge:WikiProject Songs
2580:
2424:(last update: 5 June 2024)
2316:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
2249:time of Singles were low
1102:I agree with you that the
765:" has its own section for
619:the image description page
548:05:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
513:Well, I removed it then.--
419:project's importance scale
309:Template:WikiProject Songs
222:project's importance scale
2534:Idols task force articles
2154:15:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
767:the take by Mary J. Blige
651:be mentioned âPreceding
621:and edit it to include a
518:13:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
501:13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
412:
345:
274:
237:
215:
144:
71:
46:
2549:B-Class Ireland articles
2306:22:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
2286:19:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
2265:12:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
2109:21:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
2054:15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1981:14:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1673:10:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1619:07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1593:06:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1560:05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1531:05:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1505:03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1484:01:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1465:23:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1449:02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1430:02:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1404:15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1381:04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1348:03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1329:03:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1305:02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1280:02:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1265:04:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1201:04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1189:Ruben Studdard's version
1176:02:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1154:"it was a beautiful day"
1123:01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1074:00:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1032:00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
995:22:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
953:18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
911:15:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
888:14:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
874:15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
844:14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
819:01:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
789:23:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
646:02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
604:explanation or rationale
566:20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
99:Knowledge:WikiProject U2
2312:External links modified
1157:"you can teach me love"
595:Image:Beautiful Day.jpg
102:Template:WikiProject U2
2524:B-Class Idols articles
1655:in return for grace".
1230:No Line on the Horizon
1097:check the edit history
590:
234:
175:WikiProject Television
28:This article is rated
2544:B-Class song articles
794:I watched one bit of
589:
233:
190:for the type of work.
2405:regular verification
2133:Please change that
2025:Melicans 30 May 2010
921:No Boundaries (song)
527:Who wrote the song?
241:the Idols task force
2395:After February 2018
2374:parameter below to
1745:independent article
1566:Knowledge:Consensus
1511:Knowledge:Consensus
943:. Just saying... --
376:WikiProject Ireland
202:television articles
184:join the discussion
180:television programs
2449:InternetArchiveBot
2400:InternetArchiveBot
2216:please remove it
1474:into the article.
1210:, a subsection of
925:A Moment Like This
915:I think we should
623:fair use rationale
591:
235:
34:content assessment
2425:
2267:
2255:comment added by
2234:
2222:comment added by
2185:
2173:comment added by
2107:
2026:
1617:
1558:
1503:
1336:Billboard Hot 100
1327:
1311:made the addition
1303:
1287:I Dreamed a Dream
1263:
1178:
1121:
909:
872:
852:original research
834:comment added by
787:
698:
681:comment added by
655:comment added by
433:
432:
429:
428:
425:
424:
324:
323:
320:
319:
289:WikiProject Songs
256:
255:
252:
251:
167:Television portal
117:
116:
113:
112:
2571:
2459:
2450:
2423:
2422:
2401:
2389:
2352:
2097:
2052:
2047:
2041:
2024:
1671:
1666:
1660:
1607:
1572:and it now does.
1548:
1493:
1457:AlbertusmagnusOP
1377:
1371:
1317:
1293:
1253:
1225:Winter (U2 song)
1174:
1169:
1163:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1111:
1030:
1025:
1019:
993:
988:
982:
957:Noone is saying
937:The Climb (song)
933:When You Believe
899:
862:
846:
817:
812:
806:
777:
761:" article, and "
697:
675:
602:but there is no
442:User:NFAN3|NFAN3
401:
400:
399:Ireland articles
397:
394:
391:
370:
365:
364:
363:
354:
347:
346:
341:
333:
326:
314:
313:
310:
307:
304:
283:
276:
275:
265:
258:
204:
203:
200:
197:
194:
188:style guidelines
169:
164:
163:
153:
146:
145:
140:
137:
126:
119:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
80:
73:
72:
67:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
2579:
2578:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2504:
2503:
2468:
2453:
2448:
2416:
2409:have permission
2399:
2383:
2346:
2329:this simple FaQ
2314:
2240:
2116:
2045:
2039:
2037:
1851:, not about U2.
1844:Regis And Kelly
1664:
1658:
1656:
1375:
1369:
1167:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1083:semi-protection
1023:
1017:
1015:
986:
980:
978:
829:
810:
804:
802:
751:"Beautiful Day"
727:
704:
676:
672:
584:
573:
556:
533:
531:It is a taxiway
477:
452:
438:
398:
395:
392:
389:
388:
366:
361:
359:
339:
311:
308:
305:
302:
301:
246:High-importance
218:High-importance
201:
198:
195:
192:
191:
165:
158:
139:Highâimportance
138:
132:
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
2577:
2575:
2567:
2566:
2561:
2556:
2551:
2546:
2541:
2536:
2531:
2526:
2521:
2516:
2506:
2505:
2502:
2501:
2487:Y2Kcrazyjoker4
2472:211.26.216.189
2467:
2464:
2443:
2442:
2435:
2368:
2367:
2359:Added archive
2357:
2343:
2335:Added archive
2313:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2294:Y2Kcrazyjoker4
2278:89.204.154.150
2270:
2239:
2236:
2212:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2193:Y2Kcrazyjoker4
2175:217.111.57.236
2159:
2157:
2156:
2142:Y2Kcrazyjoker4
2138:
2115:
2112:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2033:
2029:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:is incomplete.
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1640:
1634:
1630:
1577:
1573:
1541:
1518:
1452:
1451:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1243:
1239:in the article
1234:
1136:
1100:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
997:
856:isn't a "must"
822:
821:
726:
719:
703:
700:
671:
668:
643:BetacommandBot
583:
580:
572:
569:
555:
552:
551:
550:
541:
537:
532:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
506:
505:
504:
503:
491:
490:
476:
475:What the hell?
473:
472:
471:
451:
448:
437:
434:
431:
430:
427:
426:
423:
422:
415:Mid-importance
411:
405:
404:
402:
385:the discussion
372:
371:
368:Ireland portal
355:
343:
342:
340:Midâimportance
334:
322:
321:
318:
317:
315:
298:the discussion
284:
272:
271:
266:
254:
253:
250:
249:
236:
226:
225:
214:
208:
207:
205:
171:
170:
154:
142:
141:
127:
115:
114:
111:
110:
108:
85:WikiProject U2
81:
69:
68:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2576:
2565:
2562:
2560:
2557:
2555:
2552:
2550:
2547:
2545:
2542:
2540:
2537:
2535:
2532:
2530:
2527:
2525:
2522:
2520:
2517:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2509:
2500:
2496:
2495:contributions
2492:
2488:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2477:
2473:
2466:links to A-ha
2465:
2463:
2462:
2457:
2452:
2451:
2440:
2436:
2433:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2420:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2396:
2391:
2387:
2381:
2377:
2373:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2356:
2350:
2344:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2321:Beautiful Day
2317:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2302:contributions
2299:
2295:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2274:
2273:
2268:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2257:82.113.98.133
2254:
2246:
2243:
2237:
2235:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2214:
2206:
2202:
2201:contributions
2198:
2194:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2165:
2162:
2155:
2151:
2150:contributions
2147:
2143:
2139:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2131:
2128:
2125:
2122:
2119:
2114:Certification
2113:
2111:
2110:
2105:
2104:contributions
2101:
2096:
2091:
2086:
2083:
2079:
2055:
2051:
2048:
2042:
2034:
2030:
2022:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1969:Mrs. Robinson
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1932:
1928:
1923:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1886:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1850:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1661:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1641:
1638:
1637:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1615:
1614:contributions
1611:
1606:
1601:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1556:
1555:contributions
1552:
1547:
1542:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1519:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1501:
1500:contributions
1497:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:Wasted Time R
1393:
1388:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1372:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1325:
1324:contributions
1321:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1301:
1300:contributions
1297:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1261:
1260:contributions
1257:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1180:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1164:
1137:
1134:
1133:One (U2 song)
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1118:contributions
1115:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1056:
1052:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1020:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
996:
992:
989:
983:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
955:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
907:
906:contributions
903:
898:
894:
893:WP:OTHERSTUFF
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
870:
869:contributions
866:
861:
857:
853:
848:
847:
845:
841:
837:
836:189.83.63.254
833:
826:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
813:
807:
799:
798:
793:
792:
791:
790:
785:
784:contributions
781:
776:
770:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
739:
736:
732:
731:American Idol
724:
723:American Idol
721:Lee DeWyze's
718:
717:
713:
709:
701:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
669:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
648:
647:
644:
640:
636:
633:described on
630:
628:
624:
620:
617:Please go to
615:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
588:
581:
579:
576:
570:
568:
567:
564:
559:
553:
549:
546:
542:
540:complicated).
538:
535:
534:
530:
528:
519:
516:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
502:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
486:
482:
481:
480:
474:
470:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
457:
449:
447:
446:
443:
435:
420:
416:
410:
407:
406:
403:
386:
382:
378:
377:
369:
358:
356:
353:
349:
348:
344:
338:
335:
332:
328:
316:
312:song articles
299:
295:
291:
290:
285:
282:
278:
277:
273:
270:
267:
264:
260:
247:
244:(assessed as
243:
242:
232:
228:
227:
223:
219:
213:
210:
209:
206:
189:
185:
181:
177:
176:
168:
162:
157:
155:
152:
148:
147:
143:
136:
131:
128:
125:
121:
109:
92:
91:
86:
82:
79:
75:
74:
70:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2469:
2447:
2444:
2419:source check
2398:
2392:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2369:
2318:
2315:
2275:
2269:
2251:â Preceding
2247:
2244:
2241:
2224:176.0.44.133
2218:â Preceding
2215:
2211:
2169:â Preceding
2166:
2163:
2158:
2132:
2129:
2126:
2123:
2120:
2117:
2088:
2087:
2077:
2074:
2019:
1973:99.192.82.65
1930:
1926:
1848:
1843:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1761:
1756:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1652:
1648:
1599:
1453:
1413:
1409:
1407:
1384:
1366:
1228:
1215:
1095:did, if you
1082:
1059:
1048:
1011:
1008:
958:
916:
795:
771:
740:
730:
728:
722:
708:72.87.59.111
705:
673:
657:71.179.26.56
649:
641:. Thank you.
631:
616:
593:
592:
577:
574:
560:
557:
526:
478:
453:
439:
436:Sanctus Real
414:
374:
287:
239:
217:
173:
88:
40:WikiProjects
2386:Sourcecheck
2090:subsection.
1182:would pass
830:âPreceding
677:âPreceding
105:U2 articles
2508:Categories
2456:Report bug
1370:Mr. Slinks
1221:Lee DeWyze
1104:Lee DeWyze
1089:SlimVirgin
1081:requested
1062:Lee DeWyze
945:Maxime9232
880:Maxime9232
735:Lee Dewyze
554:Always????
193:Television
130:Television
2439:this tool
2432:this tool
2349:dead link
2040:delirious
1659:delirious
1570:WP:NSONGS
1515:WP:NSONGS
1441:Tinlinkin
1422:Tinlinkin
1340:Tinlinkin
1272:Tinlinkin
1184:WP:NSONGS
1162:delirious
1018:delirious
981:delirious
805:delirious
571:Ambiguity
2445:Cheers.â
2253:unsigned
2220:unsigned
2171:unsigned
2095:Melicans
1753:WP:NSONG
1626:WP:NSONG
1605:Melicans
1600:probably
1546:Melicans
1491:Melicans
1412:suggest
1410:strongly
1315:Melicans
1291:Melicans
1251:Melicans
1208:WP:NSONG
1109:Melicans
1093:Cassiojg
975:WP:NSONG
897:Melicans
860:Melicans
832:unsigned
775:Melicans
702:Remixes?
691:contribs
679:unsigned
653:unsigned
612:fair use
600:fair use
498:Zepher25
90:inactive
64:inactive
2372:checked
2353:tag to
2325:my edit
1762:because
1749:section
1741:section
1585:Aspects
1523:Aspects
1476:Aspects
1414:merging
1193:Aspects
1066:Aspects
515:Kristbg
485:Kristbg
466:Kristbg
417:on the
390:Ireland
381:Ireland
337:Ireland
220:on the
30:B-class
2380:failed
2345:Added
2043:&
1922:WP:OWN
1662:&
1653:a hand
1165:&
1021:&
1014:song.
984:&
959:DELETE
808:&
683:Friloc
670:Covers
563:Sebelk
545:Vittau
36:scale.
1649:Today
1212:WP:NM
1055:WP:NM
1051:WP:NM
743:WP:NM
725:cover
456:T-rex
450:Stub?
303:Songs
294:songs
269:Songs
135:Idols
2491:talk
2476:talk
2376:true
2298:talk
2282:talk
2261:talk
2228:talk
2197:talk
2179:talk
2146:talk
2100:talk
2046:lost
1977:talk
1931:song
1927:song
1849:song
1807:song
1803:song
1757:tons
1665:lost
1610:talk
1589:talk
1551:talk
1527:talk
1496:talk
1480:talk
1461:talk
1445:talk
1426:talk
1400:talk
1376:talk
1344:talk
1320:talk
1296:talk
1276:talk
1256:talk
1197:talk
1168:lost
1114:talk
1070:talk
1024:lost
987:lost
949:talk
939:and
917:KEEP
902:talk
884:talk
865:talk
840:talk
811:lost
780:talk
712:talk
687:talk
661:talk
212:High
2493:â˘
2413:RfC
2390:).
2378:or
2363:to
2339:to
2300:â˘
2199:â˘
2148:â˘
1799:not
1214:: "
1012:his
1009:not
763:One
409:Mid
2510::
2497:)
2478:)
2426:.
2421:}}
2417:{{
2388:}}
2384:{{
2351:}}
2347:{{
2304:)
2284:)
2263:)
2230:)
2203:)
2181:)
2152:)
2102:,
2049:âŻ
2023:"
1979:)
1668:âŻ
1612:,
1591:)
1553:,
1529:)
1498:,
1482:)
1463:)
1447:)
1428:)
1408:I
1402:)
1379:)
1346:)
1322:,
1298:,
1278:)
1258:,
1199:)
1171:âŻ
1116:,
1072:)
1057:.
1027:âŻ
990:âŻ
951:)
935:,
931:,
927:,
904:,
886:)
867:,
842:)
814:âŻ
797:AI
782:,
733:,
714:)
693:)
689:â˘
663:)
614:.
561:--
248:).
133::
96:U2
59:U2
2489:(
2474:(
2458:)
2454:(
2441:.
2434:.
2296:(
2280:(
2259:(
2226:(
2195:(
2177:(
2144:(
2106:)
2098:(
1975:(
1616:)
1608:(
1587:(
1557:)
1549:(
1525:(
1502:)
1494:(
1478:(
1459:(
1443:(
1424:(
1398:(
1390:"
1373:(
1342:(
1326:)
1318:(
1302:)
1294:(
1274:(
1262:)
1254:(
1233:.
1195:(
1120:)
1112:(
1068:(
947:(
908:)
900:(
882:(
871:)
863:(
838:(
786:)
778:(
710:(
685:(
659:(
421:.
224:.
93:.
66:)
62:(
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
