Talk:What a Man (song)

B sides?

Was it a one track single or had been there any additional music on the CD? -- MacCambridge (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Stu

I have removed The song was written about 'Pepas' hero Mr Stuart Heywood ... as I suspect vandalism (unsourced edit by anonymous user). Maikel (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 00:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

What a Man (song) → Whatta Man – The cover version by Salt-n-Peppa and En Vogue was the most successful out of three versions. Also, the proposed title was used for the most notable version. Even the cover version has more Google results than other versions, especially with the proposed title used. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 03:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I thought it was WP song project practice to maintain first chart hit artist and title in these kind of cases? Every book source I can see on the 1st remake says it's a remake of the Linda Lydell song, and the 2nd Lena remake retains the original Linda Lydell spelling. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@IIO: WP:NCM does not mention any version of a song. How about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA, though neither mentions which version of a song? George Ho (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Are there many precedents for an article on a hit song of the 1960s to be retitled according to one modern remake? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this relevant? George Ho (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

then Oppose if there's no precedent, then can't support this. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I got one precedent for you, IIO: (They Long to Be) Close to You. The original did not have parentheses. Even I proposed removing them at the talk page, but consensus opposed the removal. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but that wasn't a hit. I asked "Are there many precedents for an article on a hit song of the 1960s to be retitled according to one modern remake?" The song you have proposed be re-titled here according to the middle version was already a hit under the normal spelling and was already well known before the two remakes. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The original version by Lyndell wasn't a hit. It was listed in one chart, and it wasn't the Hot 100 Singles chart. Hit or not, the Lyndell version wasn't that big. Neither was the Laura Lee version; I couldn't find the version in music charts. George Ho (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

If one example is not enough, IIO, how about Got My Mind Set on You and To Be a Lover? George Ho (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That third example does, yes, actually already have notability as a single for William Bell. Shame there's so little information about the song in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What about All the Man That I Need, in ictu oculi? George Ho (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea. The Salt-n-Peppa version is by far the most notable and best known, so this is likely the WP:COMMONNAME. It also better fulfills every point of the WP:CRITERIA:

• Recognizability: The Salt-n-Peppa version is the most recognizable; I imagine many readers are WP:SURPRISEd to find the subject at this title.
• Naturalness: Whatta Man is WP:NATURALDIS; the version with parentheses is obviously not natural.
• Precision: Both versions are about equally WP:PRECISE.
• Conciseness: Whatta Man is more WP:CONCISE.
• Consistency: Like any subject, song articles go with the common name (unless it's not clear), and WP:NATURALDIS is generally preferable to parentheses where available. In addition to George Ho's (They Long to Be) Close to You, see also Stagger Lee, which has Lloyd Price's 1958 title despite "Stack-a-Lee" and "Stagolee" being the older names ("Stack-a-Lee" was previously a hit for Archibald in 1950).

Additionally, all versions can be covered in the same place regardless of the title, so it's best to stick with the better known title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is about the work as a whole, not a particular cover of it, and the title of the work is "What a Man". "Whatta Man" is just one presumably intentional respelling by a performer (rather, a group of performers on one release) of a cover, while at least one later cover reverted to the original spelling. If I put out a single that was a cover of "All You Need Is Love" by the Beatles and, by some miracle, it outsold the original, we would not swoop in and rename our article "All Ya Need Is Love" just because my record label chose to spell it that way as a marketing gimmick.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC). Revised: 11:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I re-read your rationale several times, Stanton. The Beatles and Linda... (ugh!) Lyndell (not easy to memorize her surname) don't compare. The Beatles are more well known, while she... isn't. Why comparing the successful original version by the original successful performers with the flopped version by the less notable singer? The article weighs more on the Salt-n-Pepa version. Readers recognize the Salt-n-Pepa song a lot more than they do the original or the later version by the German singer. George Ho (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If that's not enough, then the "readers come first" principle must apply per WP:AT#Deciding on an article title, including general audience. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Read my above message to another user, In ictu oculi. George Ho (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no magical "special notability" threshold at which we do things differently for topic A versus topic B. Either it's notable or it not. This song is notable, as its own topic, so we treat it the same way as some other song that happened to originally be by the Beatles. If you're convinced that the Salt-n-Peppa arrangement is independently notable (e.g. because someone else essentially covered it directly rather than producing a cover closely based on the original, which is an uncommon but not ultra-rare occurrence), you're welcome to try creating a separate article for "Whatta Man". This would not be unheard of on Wikipedia; a single can be notable in its own right, as a release, independently of the underlying musical work. That said, I'm skeptical such an article would survive AfD; I strongly suspect it would be merged back into the article on the song and its various covers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Reluctantly, because I'm of an age at which I know the Linda Lyndell version much better than the Salt-n-Pepa version (arrangement? reworking? - certainly not a "cover"). But the later version was a much bigger hit and is generally better known, and per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be titled accordingly. There are, I'm sure, many examples of songs where the original title is not used for that very reason - an obvious example that springs to my mind is Tell Mama (song) - another is "Somethin' Stupid" (which originally had a "g"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, also somewhat reluctantly, as I've some sympathy for the WikiProject practice, but it should not overrule the common name criteria. Andrewa (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the name of the song is "What a Man". "Whatta Man" is the spelling of only one cover of such song, which does not appear to have much more long-term prominence. Neodop (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, and all the other article titling criteria that Cuchullain mentions above. The Salt n' Pepper version is overwhelmingly the most notable, so it's fair for it to dictate the article title.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose since the original version of the song was spelled as it currently is in the title of this article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Make me do the James Brown, every time I get on my feet"

There's nothing in the article about this line in Linda Lyndell's lyrics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1bVMW2XVNI What particular move by James Brown did this mean in 1968? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's avoid original research here please. No sources have discussed this. Maybe you can research and then seek a publisher that can accept your research. Otherwise, let's not add portion about lyrics until secondary sources about the lyrics are found. --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• To Anyone, a common failure of song articles, but shouldn't articles on songs ideally have some content about the actual song? The article is supposedly about a song written by Dave Crawford (musician) yet in all the sales figures data on the page there is virtually nothing about the song itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you no original research? You added it without verifying the lyrics' intent via secondary sources. Also, the line about James Brown is just a mere line. It's not to be taken seriously. George Ho (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "original research"? I verified both facts. Are you saying that Linda Lyndell didn't sing for James Brown (she did it's her own article) and that the song doesn't say "do the James Brown"? These are both verifiable facts, on what possible ground would you delete them? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dave Crawford wrote the line. The "Lyndell had sung as a support act with James Brown" is unverifiable, and Using primary source to prove the connection violates the "no OR" rule. How did Lyndell know what the Crawford's line means? I searched for proof from secondary sources but found nearly none. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I found this source and that source. However, these sources do not connect the song with James Brown. Rather than jump ahead, let's be careful and then go to WP:RSN and/or WP:NORN. Shall we? George Ho (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not what "original research" means, George. Please re-read WP:OR. OR means original research by Wikipedians. What you are doing is closer to original research; you're trying to determine as your own "investigative journalist" whether Crawford's published statements are credible. See also WP:PSTS; a primary source is sufficient as long as the item it sources is not "analysis, interpretation, evaluation, or synthesis" of data.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the noticeboard, Stanton. BTW, "original research" means posting your own analysis in the article. What I did was omitting the passage that linked Lyndell's act with the lyric line. NOR doesn't extend outside preventing analytical insertions in the article, does it? George Ho (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait... WP:NOR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I can say what I want in talk pages, in other words, Stanton. The spirit of NOR applies to articles only, not any talk venue, like WP:VP and RM discussions. And I can insert original research here, not in the main article. By the way, I was trying to prevent IIO from reinserting some line reference; I never added an unverifiable analysis, including of mine. George Ho (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why I said "is closer to original research" not "is original research". The extent you would make changes to the article based on your own WP:AEIS, whether you do it on the talk page or in your head, it would enter OR territory, however. Just follow the sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Struck that comment as I realize that Lyndell was the act. However, the song itself is not proof of her career as background act with James Brown. George Ho (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC); (See below) 15:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? Why can't readers be allowed to see what we know are sourced facts? Lyndell was a backing singer for Brown (fact). The song contains the lyric "Make me do the James Brown, every time I get on my feet" (fact). It's not our job to censor content not related to Salt-n-Pepa. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. I could see George's point if our article included some kind of out-of-nowhere personal analysis, evaluation and interpretation, like "Lyndell's work with James Brown was so important to her, and so inspriational to songwriter Crawford, that they included the reference to Brown in their song to honor the Godfather of Soul", or some other non-encyclopedic, music-journalist-wannabe blather like that. But it doesn't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What I would do is simply note, in the article, that Lyndell had been a backing singer for Brown (sourced), and leave readers - not editors - to make whatever inferences they want. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is the content which was removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The removed content went slightly beyond that. But let's not argue the point any more. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

IIO, Guy, and Stanton, I reinserted Lyndell's background as a support act. However, I used the quote as an inline reference rather than a prose reference. Also, I used templates to lessen the emphasis of the mere line. Hope that's resolved. George Ho (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Re-pinging Stanton due to typo. George Ho (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for another update: Cuchallain says that the line from the song is "unnecessary", so I removed the inline citation of the line. George Ho (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the less notable original version

The original version wasn't notable enough to have its own section. Albeit, the "Original version" should be considered "Background", like Don't Cha, All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song) and I Feel for You, which I edited. Also, infoboxes are too large and clunky, especially in the mobile version. Of course, we can leave in the Salt-n-Pepa box; unsure about the Lena version box. If not for Salt-n-Pepa, the article of the original version wouldn't last and then would have been merged into a parent article. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

With respect you probably shouldn't have deleted that content on the original song before making a request to retitle to the 2nd version. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove the content about the original; just the clunky infobox. WP:INFOBOXUSE says that infoboxes are not necessary. Using the infobox would imply heavy emphasis on one thing or another. Also, MOS:INFOBOX says not to supplant information by using the boxes. Maybe I should have improved the article, but even the improvement doesn't make the original more important and significant than the Salt-n-Pepa/En Vogue version. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, per WP:RECENTISM and because this article is not about any particular recording, but about the song (the written musical work as such). Its history begins with the original not with a cover act. Also, we do not remove valid information just to make under-developed information on a subtopic look more complete; we flesh out the details of the subtopic. If you feel the S-n-P version is under-represented, then feel free to expand the article to include more reliably sourced, encyclopedically relevant information about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reworked the article, Stanton, and then added more stuff about Salt-n-Pepa's version. --George Ho (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I restored the original infobox, which had important information like who wrote it (especially that!) and what album it was (same title, so this article may end up serving as the article on that as a subtopic, unless the album is independently notable). Did a few copy edits. I wouldn't be surprised if someone complained about all the video details and other trivia (who's wearing what, and so on) as a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issue, but I'm leaving it alone (other than some minor cleanup tweaks) on the "more facts are better, usually" argument.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a missing citation in "According to the rap song may associate hypermasculinity", after "to".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added a sentence or two on the Lyndell version. Would anyone object to changing the reference to Salt-n-Pepa being a "cover version"? It wasn't - it was a reinterpretation of the song, using a sample of the original - "When rappers Salt-N-Pepa teamed with R&B vocal group En Vogue for their provocative 1993 single "Whatta Man," they borrowed Lyndell's original chorus in toto. She knew nothing of the appropriation until the first royalty check appeared in her mailbox, but the massive success of the hip-hop update proved the catalyst that inspired Lyndell to eventually resume her music career. In May 2003 she performed at the opening of Memphis' Stax Museum, highlighted by her first-ever public rendition of "What a Man."" Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and that fact about Lyndell is obviously of note. There have been actual cover versions, so the lead should probably speak of "cover versions and reinterpretations by various artists, including ...".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've gone with "sampled and reinterpreted", which is supported by the main article text and the Allmusic reference above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing songs from commercials/adverts

With the ongoing retail apocalypse phenomenon, along with websites such as Commercials I Hate and Am I Right, we need to remove some references to songs used in commercials.