Talk:Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35

Copyright problems?

Much of this article appears to be plagiarized from http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2934 JnB987 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article should be moved to an article about Bob Dylan's song Rainy Day Women in my opinion. Any thoughts?--CountCrazy007 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean

"Phil Spector also implies, in the book, that Dylan was inspired to write the song after he and Spector heard it on a juke-box in a coffee shop in Los Angeles and were both "surprised to hear a song that free, that explicit"."

Why would he write a song after he heard it on a jukebox. Doesn't that imply someone else wrote the song and published it first, and he made a cover of the song?

According to Michael Gray in The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, the song Spector and Dylan heard was "Let's Go Get Stoned" by Ray Charles. Gray cites Robert Shelton as the source of the story, but doesn't indicate which of Shelton's books it came from. Allreet (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Instrumentation

First off, it may be the only song with a full brass band but it's not the only song on the album with brass. "Most likely you'll go your way and I'll go mine" also more subtley uses brass. Also, I remember reading in the VH1 100 Greatest Albums book that musicians were reportedly moved around to play unfamiliar instruments, creating the loose sound the song is known for. Anyone know if that's true?

Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This sounds like a casual description rather than a formal one. 169.233.58.87 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for song title?

Does anyone know why the song is titled "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35"? What does the title mean?

If it's known--and it's not just Mr. D being deliberately obscure and impenetrable (never!)--I think that would be worth mentioning. Everyone knows the song as "Everybody Must Get Stoned", and I can never remember just which rainy day women he's singing about... -- Narsil (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always been curious about that, especially since realizing that 12 * 35 = 420, although this album was released years before the purported coining of that term in stoner culture. GuruBuckaroo (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proverbs 27:15 - "A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike". Dunno about the numbers. 24.4.117.25 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ages? – Hattrem (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Urban Dictionary contains the term "Rainy Day Lady," an old word for a marijuana cigarette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.131.253 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

LF - Rainy Day Women refers to the Book of Proverbs where it says the continual dropping of water on a very rainy day is like a constantly complaining woman. The song is about being constantly criticized no matter what you do. The word "stone" refers to Muslim style stonings, or Biblical style stonings, and has nothing to do with drugs or alcohol. They stoned Rosa Parks for trying to keep her seat on a bus. They stoned Dylan for playing his electric guitar when what they wanted was folk guitar, as he used to play, and they considered him a traitor to be playing rock and roll rather than folk. I don't know what the 12 and 35 are about. A rainy day woman, here, is a nagging and criticizing woman who just never stops, like the rain on a rainy day.Lfbno7 (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Recording section not completely "straight"

The account on alcohol and marijuana use at the "Rainy Day" recording session does not conform with the source (Sounes's Down the Highway) on much of what's said:

• The point Sounes makes is that Dylan didn't want to record the song with "a bunch of straight people." He doesn't say Dylan mentioned pot, only that he sent out for alcohol. Thus, the sentence "The song sounds as if it is being played by musicians who are very high on marijuana, and that is possibly intentional" is off base.
• Sounes does not say that "Dylan did not touch the alcohol..." And he doesn't say that Dylan smoked or passed the pot. He simply says "joints were passed around."
• Sounes does say "some of the musicians remained completely straight" and specifically mentions Charlie McCoy as one of the non-imbibers. While Sounes does imply by all this that Dylan did get high during the session, the WP account leaves it at everyone must have gotten stoned.

Based on this, I plan to re-write the section. I'll defer, however, to anyone who has other sources to fill in what Sounes leaves up in the air. Allreet (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Possible Pot Reference?

12 x 35 = 420. This had to have been intentional. Jackass2009 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that the song was recorded four years before the first 420 marijuana reference in 1970. Ajericn 09:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajericn (talk • contribs)

Similarities.

I have just removed the following, and bears similarity in melody and rhythm to the German drinking song, "Wer Soll Das Bezahlen". on the grounds that it wasn't referenced, that the chances of one song not being "similar" to another song is highly unlikely, so unless there is a reference that Dylan based his song on another, it is really highly circumstantial and non-notable. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What if we would say "its structure is in the tradition of German drinking songs, and shares the basic melody of "Wer Soll Das Bezahlen"? Would that be more precise and appropriate?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If it had been referenced I would not have removed it. There's always songs that "sound similar", in fact a couple of night ago I rushed to the radio thinking this song was on - it wasn't, just another song that sounded similar. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

All right. I'll look around for a reference, or I'll just wait 'til one shows up. Thanks. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ray Charles anecdote

Version 685885702 says: '(This anecdote may be questioned because the Ray Charles song was released in April 1966, after "Rainy Day Women" was recorded.)' Though the song Let's Go Get Stoned was released as a single in April 1966, it first appeared in Charles's album Crying Time, which was released in January or February 1966. Spector and Dylan could therefore have heard it before the recording of Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35. Sbp (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Book of Acts

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-unleashed-a-wild-ride-on-his-new-lp-and-striking-back-at-critics-20120927

Question: Do you ever worry that people interpreted your work in misguided ways? For example, some people still see "Rainy Day Women" as coded about getting high.

Answer: It doesn't surprise me that some people would see it that way. But these are people that aren't familiar with the Book of Acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.180.193 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment on re-write

BennyOnTheLoose has improved this article thru sterling work. I’ve made some subsequent edits and here are some points to discuss:

• I found this puzzling: “Reviewing the album version, Ralph Gleason of the San Francisco Examiner welcomed the song as "comic, satirical ... with its Ma Rainey traditional blues feeling, its wild lyrics", and praised Robertson's guitar work." Because we know Robertson did not play on this track. So I deleted the last 5 words of Gleason’s quote.

• Makes sense to remove that - I wondered if I'd made that up, but it does appear in the article - I've added a link to a clipping in the citation. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Footnote 36 referred to Greil Marcus, Like A Rolling Stone, p.250. I can’t see anything on p.250 that relates to the point made so I’ve deleted that footnote.

• Yes, the page 250 reference is probably a copy and paste error on my part - in my edition it's got the note on the Johnston cover version mentioned later. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ray Charles question. Text says: "In fact, the Charles song was released in April 1966, after "Rainy Day Women" was recorded." BUT the Talk page contains the following comment:

• Though the song Let's Go Get Stoned was released as a single in April 1966, it first appeared in Charles's album Crying Time, which was released in February 1966. Spector and Dylan could therefore have heard it before the recording of Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35.

• I haven’t been able to verify this point, but, if accurate, the text should be re-written.

• If it was, as Shelton, Gray (in Song and Dance Man III), and Sanders write, on a juke box, then surely it can't have been the album track they heard; perhaps another possibility was that they heard it on the radio rather than from a juke box? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
• A Cash Box discography from 1971 and Adam Woog's Ray Charles and the Birth of Soul (2005) both have a release date of January 1966 for Charles's Crying Time album. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Talk page also pointed me to Dylan’s comment on this song in his 2012 Rolling Stone interview with Mikal Gilmore. So I’ve added that comment to the article.

Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 16:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Benny & Mick: I'll review this. On first reading, it's interesting and checks all the boxes. I might be busy for the next couple of days, but I'll get to it soon. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• Inline citations – Genres are normally stated and referenced in the body of the article (Template:Infobox song#genre). Although Ruhlmann uses "folk/rock", it's unclear if this is different than "folk rock", which is how the genre is usually written (& linked). From the main body, it seems that "blues rock" and possibly "novelty song" may also apply.

• There are quite a few options for genre, none of which I can find consistently across sources, e.g.

• New Orleans R&B: from Ribowsky, Mark, 2015. Whiskey Bottles and Brand-New Cars: The Fast Life and Sudden Death of Lynyrd Skynyrd. Chicago Review Press (I had previously removed this)
• Blues: "An example of Dylan pairing musical twelve-bar blues with a different pattern of lyrics" (Starr, 2021)
• Pop: "tighter pop songs, all of which became hits" [e.g. Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35] (Robins, Wayne (2008). A Brief History of Rock, Off the Record, Routledge}}; "lightweight pop" (Charlesworth, Chris (2008). 25 Albums that Rocked the World, Omnibus)
• Soft rock: (I'm not sure if it's actually a genre, but it gives me a chance to add this odd quote!) "WJBK ... has launched a soft-rock format ... The station is now injecting current Hot 100 singles of non-raucous nature ... [for example] 'Rainy Day Women'" ("WJBK amends its format to soft rock", Billboard, May 14 1966, p.24)

As far as I can tell, the major Dylan books don't describe the song with a genre. I'm not a fan of genres in infoboxes unless there is one clear genre mentioned across sources, but I know that other editors see value in adding them there. Should I include the various genres such as the above in the article text, and then add to the infobox, or is there a better way? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm no fan either. Most comprehensive artist bios I've come across rarely indicate a unusable genre, so it often falls to miscellaneous reviews, etc. Genres should not be added simply because they exist somewhere. In this case, neither folk/rock nor psychedelia is discussed in the article and I don't think that there is anything to support their inclusion. The brass band and marching-style drumming reminds me of New Orleans-style, but pop and soft rock are fringe views IMO. It has the structure of a 12-bar blues, but is not blues per se. "Rock" is always an option, but anything else should be stated and preferably receive some discussion in the main body. Up to you.

I've removed genres from the infobox; sources lack consistency on this point, and a lot if them are not in-depth. There's an interesting 1966 ad in Billboard for the single on page 43 here: "First it was folk. Then folk-rock. Now: a completely original bag so new it doesn't even have a name. Yet." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what the genre editors add. "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" uses "novelty", but it has a solid source.

• FYI only – Template:hlist isn't needed for parameters that already use class=hlist (Template:Infobox song#Notes #1 & 4).

• Noted, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• Will address after the rest is reviewed.
• I hesitate to advise on writing style; please take this as a suggestion to be used or ignored as you see fit:

"Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" (sometimes referred to erroneously as "Everybody Must Get Stoned") is a song written and recorded by American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. Columbia Records first released an edited version as a single in March 1966, which reached numbers two and seven in the US and UK charts respectively. A longer version appears as the opening track of Dylan's seventh studio album, Blonde on Blonde (1966), and has been included on several compilation albums.

"Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" was recorded in one take in Columbia's Nashville, Tennessee, studio with session musicians. The track was produced by Bob Johnston and features a raucous brass band accompaniment. There has been much debate over both the meaning of the title and of the recurrent chorus, "Everybody must get stoned". Consequently, it became controversial, with some commentators labeling it as "a drug song". The song received acclaim from music critics, several of whom highlighted the playful nature of the track. Over the years, it became one of Dylan's most performed concert pieces, sometimes with variations in the arrangement.

• I like it. Used your version in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad it was useful. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Background and recording

Resolved

• bjorner.com – Appears to be self-published and includes a lot of copied articles that are likely copyrighted. Wilentz is also used for the same sentence, so maybe bjorner isn't needed or can be replaced.

• Bjorner's site was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bob Dylan/archive3, which resulted in a keep of Bob Dylan as featured, but that was in 2008. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bob_Dylan#Olof_Björner
• He has published quite a few books, listed at Olof Björner, and this information formed the basis of his site. Paul Williams lists the books as a "key resource" for his Bob Dylan, Performing Artist books (e.g. vol2, p.367). In The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, Michael Gray says of the site "The detail is extraordinary, and the level of accuracy phenomenal... truly a gigantic undertaking, maintained to a very high standard indeed." (p.49). Bjorner is also used as a source by Trager; Margotin & Guedson; Clinton Heylin (it's one of just three sites listed in the long list of sources for The Double Life of Bob Dylan: Volume I: 1941–1966 A Restless, Hungry Feeling; and Sean Wilentz (Bob Dylan In America). However, alternatives are available if you would prefer that it's replaced. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, he appears to meet the SPS exception.

• Similar query for this source

• I sought a consensus at RSN here - although there was only one other participant. (See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bob_Dylan#Searching_for_a_Gem_(www.searchingforagem.com). this would be trickier to find alternatives for, but let me know what you think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it is used by several RSs, so OK. Maybe include a hidden note "Self-published, but used by several RS".

• Last paragraph – Since this describes the song structure and some musical elements, it seems that it would be more appropriate for the Composition section. Also, so a brief description or elaboration of "chromatic decent" and "Sousa-style 6/8 beat" may be helpful since the terms don't link well.

• Moved the text. I've removed that part of the description as I'm not able to helpfully explain it. (None of the Oxford, Harvard or Bloomsbury dictionaries of music has a definition of "chromatic decent"; the comparison to Sousa is, I guess, helpful to only a minority of readers.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I usually do a little at a time and your feedback is helpful to see if we're heading in the same direction. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Composition and lyrical interpretation

Resolved

• In Robert Shelton's biography of Dylan, Shelton said ... – This construction is a bit awkward. Maybe, "Dylan biographyer Robert Shelton writes that" or such.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• embarked on his 1966 "world tour" – Is there some reason that quotation marks should be used here?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• ellipses – These are formatted somewhat inconsistently throughout the article. MOS:ELLIPSES includes "Generally, use a non-breaking space before an ellipsis, and a regular space after it: "Alpha, Bravo,{{nbsp}}... Zulu" Also, I've been advised in reviews that ellipses at the beginning and the end aren't needed except for special cases, but don't have a MOS link for this.

• Hopefully now consistent (although I did one retain one closing ellipsis in "They'll stone ya when...). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• ”For example, some people still see "Rainy Day Women" – Song titles should use single quote marks when within a quote (MOS:QWQ).

• Amended. (I also made a couple of tweaks per MOS:CURLY.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Releases

Resolved

• highest placing was 7th – Words are preferred in prose (MOS:ORDINAL, MOS:SPELL09).
• It was also a number 3 in Canada, 9th in the Netherlands. – This type of short-hand seems too informal. Maybe, "It also appeared at number three in Canada and ninth in the Netherlands".

• Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• this has a duration of 6:17 – Maybe clarify: The album version is 4:36, so the rehearsal is only 1:41? From one video,[1] it sounds as if only the tail end of some discussion precedes the song, rather than a run-through. Also, see earlier comment about bjorner.

• I've tweaked the text, let me know what you think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose I'll give you a chance to address the comments so far before I add more. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So far, so good. I should finish this before long. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Critical comments

• Looks fine.

Live performances and cover versions

Resolved

• Dylan has performed ... live 963 times – This would be better with some context, such as (if true) "It is in the top 10 of his most frequently performed songs", "It is only surpassed by X, Y, and Z from his post-folk troubadour period", or "He has performed it more than any other song from Blond on Blond". Otherwise, it seems like a random statistic.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• A day earlier – Two dates are mentioned in the preceding sentence, which makes this a bit awkward (to me at least).

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• During the Dylans' 1978 world tour – "the" appears to be a typo.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• several decades later were preformed – another typo

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• The first cover version – Maybe add a brief sentence about the group or album. Deming has some good quotes that may be mined, "became so enamored of the shambolic sound of 'Rainy Day Women' that he and the Nashville session crew who played on Blonde on Blonde used it as the basis for an entire album", "turns each song into a massive practical joke, with nearly every number featuring addled march time drumming, bleating horns, incongruent sound effects, and vocalists desperately trying to keep a straight face amidst the chaos", etc. I think there should be something more to mentioning covers than the fact that they exist, but up to you.

• Good idea. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Credits and personnel

Resolved

• Section title – Not sure that "Credits" is needed. It appears to be just a list of the personnel.
• Credits adapted from – Personnel sections don't usually identify the source in the prose, unless there is a good reason (edit warring, etc.) Inline citations after "Musicians" and "Technical" should be sufficient.

• Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Charts and positions

Resolved

• Section title – Not sure that "positions" is needed. I've used "Chart performance" and others simply use "Charts".
• in the week of May 21, 1966, kept off the top spot – Awkward construction. Maybe split "in the week of May 21, 1966. The Mamas and the Papas' "Monday, Monday" prevented it from reaching the top of the chart".

• Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• New Zealand Listener – As indicated, Listener was a magazine poll and not tied to sales or airplay. The WP:CHARTS guideline specifies that charts should "cover sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources". Also, Flavour of New Zealand is self-published and most were added by a now-block user (to increase traffic?). Up to you.

• I had removed the NZ entry in December, but restored it based on the Scapolo book. However, I think the NZ charts from 1966 fail on the point you quote above, so have removed that entry. (Incidentally, I see the quote from the Scapolo book at [Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_18#Listener_New_Zealand_charts] has "The polls were eventually replaced in April 1970 by sales figures, which were reasonably accurate"; in the later edition, 1966 to 2006, this has been replaced with "In April 1970 the charts were formatted differently, allegedly by sales...") BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The RfC didn't resolve the issue as far as I'm concerned – a magazine poll is not a record sales/airplay chart and shouldn't be presented as one, even to fill in a gap. Whitburn produced an interpretive chart, but it wasn't accepted, even though he is an expert.

• US Billboard Hot 100 – AllMusic no longer has Billboard listings. Here's the website chart history link.

I'll finish reviewing your changes, the refs, and lead tomorrow. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Resolved

• Koozin #24 – There's an extra { in the sfn.
• Scapolo – No longer needed.

• Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Based on spot checks, the rest look fine.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

See discussion above.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work Benny (& Mick). I'm glad I had the chance to review this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Ojorojo for your scrutiny, and BennyOnTheLoose for doing all this work. Mick gold (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough and constructive review, Ojorojo. Much appreciated. Thanks also Mick gold for all of your contributions. It was a pleasure to work with you both. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So because someone decided we don't need genres in the infobox, for some stupid reason, we're just not going to have genres in the infobox? This site has been jumping the shark for quite some time. Dpm12 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The 1930 song Bob Dylan was referencing The Rheumatism Blues / Gene Autry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1rqb4b68Lk

Could someone who knows the skill of editing Wikipedia add the 1930 song Bob Dylan was referencing The Rheumatism Blues / Gene Autry (Blues Singer 1929-1931 "Booger Rooger Saturday Nite")? Htrowsle (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus was met to move to the other proposed title Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35 → Rainy Day Women – or Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35. The current article title is clearly not the song's title and is (very) difficult to type (if you can even figure out what the symbol is, which is not likely). At least two of the cited sources (Billboard and RPM 100) just call it "Rainy Day Women", which is more WP:CONCISE and already redirects here. Alternatively, the "#" could be represented by "Nos", as The Official Charts did. Either of those seems better than poorly imitating the visual appearance of the number sign in the title using a sharp symbol. The short form would revert a bold move of 17 July 2007 by a user who was blocked for vandalizing WP:AIV and then stopped editing in 2009. They did not provide an edit summary to explain their rationale for renaming the page to a longer title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose replacement of the number sign – WP:NCHASHTAG notes that the sharp sign ♯ (different from the keyboard # character) can be used, as in C♯ (musical note). The sharp sign is a sufficient alternative to the number sign; it is also used at ♯P (and its related articles ♯P-complete and ♯P-completeness of 01-permanent).

I do not, however, oppose moving to Rainy Day Women, as it would avoid the technical restrictions of the correct title. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying WP:NCHASHTAG as a relevant guideline. However, it appears to describe the use of a sharp sign only as a possibility to consider ("can be used"), not as a desirable approach that is preferred over others. In any case, "Rainy Day Women" seems good, and that is the suggestion I listed first. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note that the article about ♯P says it is "pronounced 'sharp P'", giving that as the first preferred pronunciation, so it is a different situation. Unlike in that case, here the "#" is clearly a number sign that indicates the concept of a number, so it can accurately be abbreviated as "Nos" (as was done by at least one cited source) or spelled out as the word "Number". That makes this situation somewhat different than ♯P. No one would pronounce the Dylan song as "Rainy Day Women Sharp 12 & 35". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact I notice you came up with a similar example yourself on a different Talk page – specifically, "Number 9 Dream" – which the article says is more properly called "#9 Dream". To me that seems very similar to using "Rainy Day Women Numbers 12 & 35" for this one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move. I think the claim that the name of the song isn't "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" is very odd. Bob Dylan's website lists it as such. It is listed as that if one looks the song up in the SESAC repertory. The cover of the 45 includes "#12 & 35"; the label on the 45 does too. The "Billboard source" listed above is actually a Rolling Stone interview, in which the interviewer is the one who shears the title of its numbers, not Mr. Dylan himself. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You may not be understanding something. The current article title includes "♯12 & 35", which is different from "#12 & 35". The current article title uses a sharp symbol, not a number sign. That is why I said it is not the song's title, because the song's title uses "#12 & 35". We can't use "#12 & 35" for technical reasons. As for whether it is Dylan or the interviewer who uses the quoted title, please note that WP:OFFICIALNAME says Wikipedia does not prefer to use the form of a title used by an "official" source, which in this case is not available to us anyway. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move. The title with the symbol is found in Bob Dylan : performing artist by Paul Williams, Counting down Bob Dylan : his 100 finest songs by Jim Beviglia, The Cambridge companion to Bob Dylan, Revolution in the Air: The Songs of Bob Dylan, Volume One: 1957–73 by Clinton Heylin, Top Pop Singles 1955-2012 by Joel Whitburn, A darker shade of pale : a backdrop to Bob Dylan by Wilfrid Mellers, Wicked messenger : Bob Dylan and the 1960s, Chimes of freedom by Mike Marquesee, and, I reckon, in the majority of sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's a different symbol. Have you read the prior comments? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But neither Rainy Day Women or Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35 are the title either; at least the current title looks more like the original than either of the proposed options. I prefer that. Strongly oppose Rainy Day Women. Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35 would be OK, I suppose. The album example at WP:CONCISE mentions "but it is abbreviated in sources", while Rainy Day Women #12 & 35 usually isn't (or at least not at first mention). WP:OFFICIALNAMES is an essay, and "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Although WP:OFFICIALNAMES is an essay, WP:COMMONNAME is policy and it says the same thing – e.g. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title". In any case, we can't use the official name for this topic, because Wikipedia does not support the use of "#" in an article title. (Apologies for replying to every opposing comment so far, by the way, but each one seems to bring up a need to reply – at least from my current overreactive perspective.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35. The sharp character is not a substitute of the number signthe same way ⋕ and ⌗ aren't. They just look similar. Semantically, the only characters in Unicode that can replace the number sign are U+FF03 ＃ FULLWIDTH NUMBER SIGN and U+FE5F ﹟ SMALL NUMBER SIGN (at least those are the ones I know of). If anyone wants to use either of those, I'd have no objections. Nickps (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Rainy Day Women Nos. 12 & 35 as a better workaround for the # character issues (both because it was used elsewhere Discogs, and because it is not an awkward replacement for # ). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.