THC Science

Yesterday (song) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 27, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 15, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 15, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The Beatles High‑importance

This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.

This article was the project collaboration on at least one previous occasion.

To-do list:

For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles.
Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article
Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs
Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood.
Verify : Beatle wives
Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Rock music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Top‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Composition and structure[edit]

The chords given for the 'second section' are all wrong. But heck, the chords for the first section are wrong too. The progression is mostly the same for both the verse and the middle eight. You got G and F#m7 and B7 and C and D and there's an Em7 at the end followed by an A7 and then a C before resolving to the tonic G. This makes for a great two-tone phrase D-C#-C on top of a lower E.

Not impressed at all by Pollack - quite the contrary, and it might help if he played guitar like Macca. And got more fresh air from time to time. Who wrote that section? Played any gigs recently?

String Quartet[edit]

A full string quartet was used in the making of "Yesterday" but it seems the Viola comes very strong and adds the emotion and expression to this song in the final verse. More so than the Violin, Cello or Bass. This applies only to the strings section and not the guitar.Amaddrums (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And?

Yesterday in films?, cont'd[edit]

Hi there,

I see in the archive that someone asked if it could be interesting to list the movies in which the song is played, but got no reply. I was once told of a (1970's?) film where the character is obsessed with the song and keeps playing it over and over, but i never heard of any other mention of such a film. Anyone ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Well, there is now an entire movie ("Yesterday"). --Daveler16 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Anna (Go to Him) Al Bundy, Married With Children, 1991? MBG02 (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yesterday (Beatles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141012090104/http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/paul-mccartney-sings-scrambled-eggs-the-original-yesterday-12910/1264343/ to http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/Paul-McCartney-sings-Scrambled-Eggs-the-original-Yesterday-12910/1264343

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yesterday (Beatles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yesterday (Beatles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207180137/http://www.music.us/billboardmagazine.htm to http://www.music.us/billboardmagazine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yesterday (Beatles song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambled eggs[edit]

Isn't the "scrambled eggs" paragraph repetitive and redundant? It explains that McCartney asked around about the melody, became confident it was his, and wrote the nonsense lyrics. Then it goes on to say that McCartney asked around about the melody, became confident it was his, ands wrote the nonsense lyrics. Mind if I shorten it?--Daveler16 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, apparently, so I made the change, keeping the citation.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Film[edit]

Although an uncited reference to it has recently been removed, the film named after the song probably warrants a mention. Thoughts? Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing McCartney[edit]

Seems it's the standard on Wikipedia to put "written by John Lennon" at every given opportunity, because if a source claims McCartney had nothing to do with it, that's the one to use. McCartney himself claims he contributed to almost every song and in the Beatles anthology, while admitting John wrote most of "all you need us love", he still wrote part of it. Backed up by George Harrison, Ringo Starr and George Martin, in the same documentary, with all three refering to both of them as the writers of it. But, if Lennon fans can get away with giving John sole ownership, they'll have it. Meanwhile, when it's a McCartney song, the words "primarily" written by Paul McCartney proves to be the prefferd phrasee, hintig that "he didn't do it on his own." Such a shame this bias is allowed to run rampant through Wikipedia. 77.98.216.8 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the sources, not personal opinions or hearsay. Beatles-related articles are very well sourced because there is a huge amount of information available. One thing to remember: Lennon and McCartney had an agreement from the very beginning of their partnership that both would be credited for all songs they wrote (while in the Beatles). Song articles always indicate "credited to Lennon-McCartney". We can't do otherwise because those are the official credits for all Lennon and McCartney songs when they were in the Beatles. But please note that song articles also make a point of stating (almost always in the lead) what the sources say about the actual writer(s). This article is an example: "written by Paul McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney". No one is "erasing McCartney", and there is no conspiracy here by "Lennon fans". All Beatles articles have a lot of eyes on them. If such a conspiracy was even attempted, it would be immediately reverted. Everything on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. And there is no debate that all of their songs are "credited to Lennon-McCartney". You won't find a source any more reliable than those already used that states otherwise. Sundayclose (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2023[edit]

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: Move per agreement over WP:PRIMARY TOPIC (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 12:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close also endorsed by Amakuru, see below.

Yesterday (Beatles song) → Yesterday (song) – There have been several previous RMs here, but all focused on the two extreme options of simply Yesterday or the doubly-disambiguated Yesterday (Beatles song). Per WP:INCOMPDAB and WP:PDAB, a partly-disambiguated title may still have a primary topic; a rule of thumb I often see used is whether the article gets more pageviews than all other candidates combined. Well, let's see. For the previous year:

Yesterday (Beatles song): 241,137 pageviews in 2022
Yesterday (Toni Braxton song): 5,210
Yesterday (Shanice song): 1,061
Yesterday (Black Eyed Peas song): 1,022

That is a 33:1 pageview ratio in favor of the Beatles song over the three others combined. Similarly, WikiNav shows that the Beatles song got 35.91% of outbound clicks from the Yesterday DAB in April, the highest of any song and the second-highest overall (after the recent film); no other song cracks the top 6 (which bottoms out at 1.8%). In addition to that technical data, there is the fact that the Beatles song is one of the most influential, most covered, and most popular songs of all time. I think there is a strong case here for it to be the primary topic for "Yesterday (song)". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the four songs listed above, there are about 25 other songs listed at Yesterday (disambiguation) with this title, and three of them (a total of seven) have articles devoted to them. That seems like a more diverse list of topics than the quintessential PDAB example, Thriller (album). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of those songs are "Yesterdays". The three I listed are the only ones with articles. There's 10 listed that point to albums and 3 that point to artists. As noted at WP:INCOMPDAB, there's been consensus to ignore non-article-worthy songs in INCOMPDAB situations. I don't think that any of these non-notable songs, none of which get a significant percentage of outbound clicks, shift the analysis much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, yes, the Ashley Roberts song article was blanked and redirected in 2021, and some of the others are "Yesterdays". One caveat I suggest though is not to consider "not having an article devoted specifically to the song" synonymous with necessarily being "a non-notable song". Disambiguation is about topics, not articles, and may consider topics discussed as a subtopic within an article that is primarily about something else (such as an album or artist). I don't know whether that distinction matters here or not – perhaps not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~malformed and early close~~ Other songs. See WP:DISAMBIGUATION. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you certainly can oppose the RM, it isn't malformed and there is no reason to early close. Please see WP:ETIQ. 162 etc. (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, I'll strike "malformed and early close" - but this is a proposal contrary to WP:PT and WP:TITLE. Why would we deliberately ambiguate an article title in this case? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No reason at all to move this to an incomplete disambiguation title. Gonnym (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: There were reasons given, those being a 33:1 pageview ratio between the Beatles song and other songs titled "Yesterday"; 35.91% of outbound clicks from the Yesterday DAB; and the fact that the Beatles song is one of the most influential, most covered, and most popular songs of all time. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the Beatles song is primary and has long-term historical significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'd normally expect more like 1 in 100 or at least in in 50. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thresholds vary for when "incomplete disambiguation" is appropriate, but my own preferences are solidly met here. The Beatles song is many many many times more notable than all the rest combined per page view stats. It's more prominent than the non-song meanings, too. SnowFire (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would normally be against a specific song having the primary title whenever other songs with the same title have separate articles. That being said, I do think there is a strong case to be made for this being the primary topic. It has the page-views to support it, and there is just a strong long-term historical significance. If this change is made, I think a hat-note redirecting users to the disambiguation page and to the links for other songs with this title would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Discussion after close[edit]

@Extorc: with respect and assuming good faith, I have reverted your non-admin close and placed a message on your Talk page. This is such a high visibility move contrary to en.wikipedia guidelines, it could have a knock on effect elswhere in the article corpus, and is highly controversial, so an admin closer would be preferable. At least a relist would be expected at this 7 day mark. But if you push through your close again I will not revert a second time. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi and Extorc: following a request by Extorc on my talk page, I'm reinstating Extorc's close here. Procedurally, it was not legitimate to simply reverse the close simply because it was a non-admin close - WP:RMNAC is clear that not being an admin is not sufficient ground on its own to reject a close. Also, having looked over the discussion I think it's a fair close, the policy explicitly allows for partial primary topics if a sufficient bar is met, which a majority here felt it did. I'm happy to also put my endorsement on this close as an admin, if that makes things clearer for you.. If you still wish to challenge the close after this, the course of actino would be to discuss it with Extorc, perhaps mention some aspects you think they failed to consider. Then, if you're still not happy after discussion with Extorc, you can file an entry at WP:MRV. Cheers and I hope you're both having a good weekend otherwise. — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Although I personally think that 3 oppose and 3 support would have been better served by a relist, No I do not think any further action is needed at this point. We'll see how the change benefits readers over the next year(s). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original 2,200 cover versions citation[edit]

Re [1], I did a little bit of digging in search of the original source. The citation just added for the "2,200 covers" claim is to cheatsheet.com, but this in turn cites a "book" by PediaPress, based on Wikipedia (quote: "BBC News named his song "Yesterday" the most covered song in history—by over 2,200 artists"). The citation ([625]) is not available in the Google Books version of the Pedia Press book. However, the citation for this claim in the Paul McCartney article, where the Pedia Press book presumably got it from, is to a BBC article from 1999. So that's the citation I've gone with. God knows where the BBC got their information from. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Latest revision as of 12:54, 10 March 2024

Composition and structure[edit]

String Quartet[edit]

Yesterday in films?, cont'd[edit]

External links modified[edit]

External links modified[edit]

External links modified[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Scrambled eggs[edit]

Film[edit]

Erasing McCartney[edit]

Requested move 14 May 2023[edit]

Discussion after close[edit]

Original 2,200 cover versions citation[edit]

Leave a Reply

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{talk header|search=yes}}
+{{Talk header|search=yes}}
 {{Notice|Consensus per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles#Closure  this RfC closure] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles this RfM closure] is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.}}
 {{ArticleHistory|action1=FAC
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 |currentstatus=FFA
 }}
-{{WikiProject The Beatles|class=B
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
+{{WikiProject The Beatles|importance=High|apple =|martin =yes|display=Beatles|song =yes|collaboration=yes}}
-|importance=High
+{{WikiProject Rock music|importance=high}}
-|apple =
+{{WikiProject Pop music|importance=top}}
-|martin =yes
+}}
-|also-beatles =yes
+<!--{{WikiProject Songs}} removed, {{WikiProject The Beatles}} contains same functionality-->
-|display=Beatles
-|song =yes
-|song-importance =Top
-|collaboration=yes
-}}<!--{{WikiProject Songs}} removed, {{WikiProject The Beatles}} contains same functionality-->
-{{WikiProject Rock music|class=B|importance=high}}
+{{old moves |list =
-==Most recorded song==
+*RM, Yesterday (song) → Yesterday, '''Moved''', 9 May 2012, [[Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song)/Archive 1#Move request (May 2012)]]
-Somebody has delited my comments that Yesterday is not the most recorded song. There is a documented discography over I Ain't Gonna Study War No More /  Down by the Riverside in the Danish Peace Academy with about 3400 recordings of I Ain't Gonna Study War No More /  Down by the Riverside:
+*RM, Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song), '''Moved''', 4 June 2014, [[Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song)/Archive 1#Move request (June 2014)]]
+*MRV, Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song), '''Endorsed''', 4 July 2014, [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 July]]
-http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/abase/sange/diskografi.xml
+*RM, Yesterday (Beatles song) → Yesterday, '''Not moved''', 21 December 2014, [[Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song)/Archive 1#Requested move 21 December 2014]]
+}}
+==Composition and structure==
-What about "Summertime"? The wikipedia page for that song lists 26,000 recorded versions  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.237.238.32|128.237.238.32]] ([[User talk:128.237.238.32|talk]]) 18:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+The chords given for the 'second section' are all wrong. But heck, the chords for the first section are wrong too. The progression is mostly the same for both the verse and the middle eight. You got G and F#m7 and B7 and C and D and there's an Em7 at the end followed by an A7 and then a C before resolving to the tonic G. This makes for a great two-tone phrase D-C#-C on top of a lower E.
-Holger Terp,
-Editor,
-The Danish Peace Academy   <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.92.0.198|83.92.0.198]] ([[User talk:83.92.0.198|talk]]) 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Not impressed at all by Pollack - quite the contrary, and it might help if he played guitar like Macca. And got more fresh air from time to time. Who wrote that section? Played any gigs recently?
-:Over 3000 versions? Article at The Independent, says that Eleanor Rigby is #1 with 131 covers and Yesterday #2 with no number mentioned. Also, somebody said Summertime has been recorded almost 14000 times. Well on The Independent's list it's #7 only... Is The Independent usually considered a good source? [[Special:Contributions/85.217.45.151|85.217.45.151]] ([[User talk:85.217.45.151|talk]]) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
+==String Quartet==
-In the introduction one can read:
+A full string quartet was used in the making of "Yesterday" but it seems the Viola comes very strong and adds the emotion and expression to this song in the final verse. More so than the Violin, Cello or Bass. This applies only to the strings section and not the guitar.[[User:Amaddrums|Amaddrums]] ([[User talk:Amaddrums|talk]]) 14:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
-"The song remains popular today with more than 3,000 recorded cover versions." [REFERENCE NEEDED. Pointing out that the Guinness World Records says so is not enough. You need to state which edition of the book is used as reference etc.] However, under the heading Reception one can read: ""Yesterday" is the most recorded song in the history of popular music; its entry in Guinness World Records suggests over 1600 different cover versions to date". Very confusing. Furthermore either write 3000 | 1600 OR 3,000 |1,600 but not 3,000 | 1600.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.44.196.146|141.44.196.146]] ([[User talk:141.44.196.146|talk]]) 14:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+::And?
+== Yesterday in  films?, cont'd ==
-==Scrambled eggs==
-"A common, mythical variation on this lyric often found is "Scrambled eggs / Oh my darling you've got lovely legs". Jane Asher makes a reference to this in her book Things He Said Today: "Don't believe that part about 'how I loved your legs.' That's bunk. My legs are horrid."" Well, the lyrics weren't necessarily about Jane Asher. In "any Years from Now On" Paul McCartney repeats the claim that the lyrics were "Scrambled eggs / Oh my darling you've got lovely legs". Of course, he might just be telling a good story, but if the only reason the claim is said to be untrue is that Jane Asher says she had horrible legs...--[[User:Deadworm222|Deadworm222]] 00:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
+Hi there,
-==Top 100==
-I'm baffled by the claim that they had 23 singles in the Top 100 in 1976, because there wasn't a top 100 back then. I don't think there was even a "bubbling under" list at that point. [[User:Bonalaw|Bonalaw]] 21:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
+I see in the archive that someone asked if it could be interesting to list the movies in which the song is played, but got no reply. I was once told of a (1970's?) film where the character is obsessed with the song and keeps playing it over and over, but i never heard of any other mention of such a film. Anyone ? --[[User:Jerome Charles Potts|Jerome Potts]] ([[User talk:Jerome Charles Potts|talk]]) 03:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
-Per the book "The Billboard book of Top 40 Hits" by Joel Whitburn, ISBN 0-8230-7499-4, pg. 9, The Hot 100 is the "main" billboard chart.  I don't know if the "Top 100" chart also existed.  I doubt it, but I can't say for sure.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BooDog|BooDog]] ([[User talk:BooDog|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BooDog|contribs]]) 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Well, there is now an entire movie ("Yesterday"). --[[User:Daveler16|Daveler16]] ([[User talk:Daveler16|talk]]) 20:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
-:My sources say so &ndash; I'll see if I can dig up more. [http://www.beatles-discography.com/beatles_british_singles.html] [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 10:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
+:Maybe [[Anna (Go to Him)]] Al Bundy, Married With Children, 1991?  [[User:MBG02|MBG02]] ([[User talk:MBG02|talk]]) 03:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
+== External links modified ==
-to re-review the article after I re-re-re-re-copyedited it, so I'm listing it here instead. The main complaint was that the facts, etc. were great, but the manner of presentation, particularly grammar, was nowhere near featured standard. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-*Personally, I think they're wrong. I've reread it again, and can't find any writing problems. I'd renominate if I were you.[[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 20:02, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
-*I agree with Meelar. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 07:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-*Me too. I love it. How long since it was rejected on FAC? I might renominate  it myself, but I'd need to look at the old discussion first. [[User:Dandrake|Dandrake]] 02:54, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
-*Based on your comments, I've [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Yesterday_.28song.29|renominated]] it. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 07:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-== Not a good Choice ==
+I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678508330 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
-This is stupid. Encyclopedias are for the dissemination of information among the general public. Although I understand that there is interesting information here (a lot of interesting information at that) I do not think this would be useful to most people, and I also think that this would not go under the category of one of Wikipedia's most excellent articles.
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141012090104/http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/paul-mccartney-sings-scrambled-eggs-the-original-yesterday-12910/1264343/ to http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/Paul-McCartney-sings-Scrambled-Eggs-the-original-Yesterday-12910/1264343
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
-:Luckily encylopedias, like most everything else, are not made for individuals and their personal whims, likes, and dislikes. Your disinterest in music says more about yourself than music or encyclopedias. This article is accesible except in the section on the melody which does not explain (or even link to) the musical terminology used (with the exception of tonic). If this is the source of your complaint, rather than complain about something you don't understand, you could simply have asked people with a different, not infererior, area of knowledge to make those edits and explanations. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 00:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
-== Possible copyright violation? ==
+Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 20:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
-I'm not a copyright lawyer, but is including the lyrics to "Scrambled Eggs" a copyright violation? McCartney may not have released this version of the song, but he did write it and presumedly never released it in to the public domain. It's apparently the complete lyrics so it goes beyond fair use. [[User:MK|MK]] 04:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-== Song lyrics ==
+== External links modified ==
-Why are song lyrics included in this article only as external link ? IMO the songs lyrics should be in the article for that song. Are there some copyright problems or what. [[User:193.58.197.218|193.58.197.218]] 11:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-:They are a confirmed copyright violation, and as such, cannot be included in the article. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 14:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-==What's it about??==
-We present three different theories on what this song is about!
+I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=739372583 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-First, on the Wikipedia main page:
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
-:''It is a ballad about unrequited love''
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
-Second, in the article:
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 08:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
-:''in June 1965, McCartney completed the finishing touches on the lyric, which touched upon the death of his mother''
+== External links modified ==
-Third, at the end of the article:
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-:''Although the lyric is rather vague, it could be interpreted to reveal sadness about a lost loved one.''
+I have just modified one external link on [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781390976 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-:All of those make sense. The lyrics were partially inspired by McCartney's mother's passing; the song can be construed to reveal sadness about a lost loved one, which could be McCartney's mother, or a lover who spurned him (unrequited love). The song's about the leaving of a loved one, but the song's never more specific than mentioning the subject is female ("why she had to go"). [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 18:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207180137/http://www.music.us/billboardmagazine.htm to http://www.music.us/billboardmagazine.htm
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-:Sorry to bust the party, but looking at the Biography, it claims "It has been suggested that the lyrics are about the loss of Paul's mother, and one line could possibly be read as that. If so, it was an unconscious element in the song's composition." I think, therefore, it's a bit of a stretch to say here that the lyrics definitely touch on the death of Paul's mother. [[User:El Pollo Diablo|El Pollo Diablo]] ([[User talk:El Pollo Diablo|Talk]]) 02:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-::When Paul learned of his Mother's death, he made a joke about the family losing her income. In a 1984 Playboy interview he said he regretted that comment for years. In the lyric he says something wrong after she leaves...just as after his mother died suddenly of breast cancer (and Paul and his brother were not told she was dying)he said something wrong. The lyrics are obviously and deliberately about his mother's death. Paul doesn't want to talk about it but it is pretty easy to figure out. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:98.221.9.90|98.221.9.90]] ([[User talk:98.221.9.90|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/98.221.9.90|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
-:::This thread is 3 years old and the article has changed significantly since then.  If you have reasonable [[WP:SOURCES|sources]] for this information, then it would be good to have it in. (John [[User:Jwy]] [[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
-== Lennon/McCartney credit "contract" ==
+== External links modified ==
-The top portion of this article says 'Although solely written by McCartney, due to his contract with the Beatles the song was credited to both him and John Lennon as "Lennon/McCartney".'  This is incorrect.
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-The usage of the "Lennon/McCartney" writing credits for songs written by either Lennon, McCartney, or both during the Beatles years, was an informal agreement between the two artists and was never set in contractual form.  Lennon and McCartney agreed early on in their career that any song either of them wrote would bear the credits "Lennon/McCartney" with the provision that they could change it at any time to make it seem more equal (for McCartney).  John Lennon even honored this agreement for his non-Beatles "Plastic Ono Band" single, "Give Peace A Chance," released in 1969.  Eventually, the "Lennon/McCartney" moniker was repeated so frequently that it became the de facto standard, and recent attempts to change the arrangement of the names by McCartney for live cover recordings his of Beatles work (that were primarily or solely written by him) to "by Paul McCartney and John Lennon" met with stiff resistance from Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, and from legions of Beatles fans hesitant to break from tradition.
-:Nice how Ono undid John's gesture of friendship to Paul by removing Paul from the "Give Peave a Chance" credit in the '90s. I don't recall any stink over that, and it was not put back as far as I know. [[User:John Cardinal|John Cardinal]] 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
+I have just modified one external link on [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792613706 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-== Lyrics copyrights ==
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101163252/http://www.didyouwatchit.com/bbc4/bbc4-the-worlds-richest-songs/ to http://www.didyouwatchit.com/bbc4/bbc4-the-worlds-richest-songs/
+*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to https://www.youtab.me/music/2FjjGzLZiDB/the-beatles/yesterday
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-I thought that most lyrics are copyrighted. The lyrics used in the article... Not sure, maybe fair-use policy will work fine? [[User:Water Bottle|WB]] 23:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-:I know that those lyrics aren't the actrual lyrics of this song, however, does anyone know of their actual copyright status? I'm removing them until it is clarified. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 22:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
-::If they are indeed based on an actual recording, then they would, I think, be covered under copyright by default (though I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Wikilaw expert).   I'm glad they are gone anyway: I have serious doubts about their veracity and even if they are real it's stupid to have the nonsense lyrics when we can't have the real ones.  [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
+== Scrambled eggs ==
-:::The only possible way the actual original lyrics could have gotten here is if they were published somewhere, recorded or not. That makes them copyrighted by Paul. Fair use/fair dealing only allows a small amount of copyrighted material to be quoted for illustrative purposes. This is a serious issue that music labels are actively litigating against websites that serve lyrics. We don't want to get in the way of ham-fisted music industry lawyers. --[[User:Tysto|Tysto]] 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
+Isn't the "scrambled eggs" paragraph repetitive and redundant? It explains that McCartney asked around about the melody, became confident it was his, and wrote the nonsense lyrics. Then it goes on to say that McCartney asked around about the melody, became confident it was his, ands wrote the nonsense lyrics.  Mind if I shorten it?--[[User:Daveler16|Daveler16]] ([[User talk:Daveler16|talk]]) 20:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
-::::If you're talking about the "Scrambled Eggs" lyrics, don't they need to be removed from the Spanish page as well? [[User:71.131.255.155|71.131.255.155]] 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
+No objection, apparently, so I made the change, keeping the citation.--[[User:Daveler16|Daveler16]] ([[User talk:Daveler16|talk]]) 16:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
-==References are broken==
-REFERENCES are borken!!--[[User:Herzog|Herzog]] 02:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC) someone want to find alternatives?
+== Film ==
-:Well, the Globe and Mail reference has been broken for quite a while, and I think there's no alternative but to view it in the Internet archive (archive.org). The BMI link has mysteriously disappeared and I think that also will have to be viewed solely from the Internet archive. I have fixed the other two broken links, however. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
+Although an uncited reference to it has recently been removed, the [[Yesterday (2019 film)|film named after the song]] probably warrants a mention. Thoughts? [[User:Dave.Dunford|Dave.Dunford]] ([[User talk:Dave.Dunford|talk]]) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
+== Erasing McCartney ==
-Just happened to try the five Craig Cross links under References and all appear to be broken. Perhaps someone else could try them to verify and, if necessary, one of the editors of this page come up with alternatives or archived versions. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
+Seems it's the standard on Wikipedia to put "written by John Lennon" at every given opportunity, because if a source claims McCartney had nothing to do with it, that's the one to use. McCartney himself claims he contributed to almost every song and in the Beatles anthology, while admitting John wrote most of "all you need us love", he still wrote part of it. Backed up by George Harrison, Ringo Starr and George Martin, in the same documentary, with all three refering to both of them as the writers of it. But, if Lennon fans can get away with giving John sole ownership, they'll have it. Meanwhile, when it's a McCartney song, the words "primarily" written by Paul McCartney proves to be the prefferd phrasee, hintig that "he didn't do it on his own." Such a shame this bias is allowed to run rampant through Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/77.98.216.8|77.98.216.8]] ([[User talk:77.98.216.8|talk]]) 04:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
-Hello. I was just wondering how I go about fixing the broken links mentioned above. I am Craig Cross, and my Beatles book has been cited in numerous places throughout Wikipedia. All of the pages linked to still exist, but have slightly different URLs due to a website redesign. (The actual text quoted hasn't changed, and they do remain part of the same website -- wwww.beatles-discography.com).
+:We follow the sources, not personal opinions or hearsay. Beatles-related articles are [[WP:RS|very well sourced]] because there is a huge amount of information available. One thing to remember: Lennon and McCartney had an agreement from the very beginning of their partnership that both would be credited for ''all'' songs they wrote (while in the Beatles). Song articles always indicate "credited to Lennon-McCartney". We can't do otherwise because those are the official credits for ''all'' Lennon and McCartney songs when they were in the Beatles. But please note that song articles also make a point of stating (almost always in the lead) what the sources say about the actual writer(s). This article is an example: "written by Paul McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney". No one is "erasing McCartney", and there is no conspiracy here by "Lennon fans". All Beatles articles have a lot of eyes on them. If such a conspiracy was even attempted, it would be immediately reverted. Everything on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. And there is no debate that all of their songs are "credited to Lennon-McCartney". You won't find a source any more reliable than those already used that states otherwise. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 04:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
+== Requested move 14 May 2023 ==
-Is there any way for me to fix the links? For example:
+<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
-http://www.beatles-discography.com/y.html
+:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
-should be http://www.beatles-discography.com/song-by-song/?s=yesterday
-and http://www.beatles-discography.com/us-singles.html,
-http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-albums.html,
-http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-eps.html,
-and http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-singles.html
-should all be http://www.beatles-discography.com/record-by-record/
-[[User:Londrummer|Londrummer]] ([[User talk:Londrummer|talk]]) 13:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
-== Lennon snubbing Yesterday? ==
-As regards Lennon supposedly snubbing Yesterday in his song 'How Do You Sleep' I think that this is wrong. When he sings: ''The only thing you done was yesterday / and since you're gone you're just another day'', he is referring to the fact that he didn't think any of McCartney's Beatles music was worth much '''with the exception''' of Yesterday. This confirms the ferocity of his attack through the song as he is attacking all the music McCartney had recorded with the Beatles and after (Another Day). Lennon often admitted himself later that he did not truly think this but that it was just the way he felt at the time he wrote the song. It was more an emotional song about his feelings than an actual true reflection of the way he felt about McCartney's music. Regardless of this it emphasises Lennons respect for the song.
-== Recent revert ==
-I reverted the addition {{tl|fact}} to several places in the article because it didn't seem to make sense to me; any editor who casually browsed through the references would see that the article is corroborated by them. We don't need to liberally sprinkle footnotes throughout the text, if that's what was being requested. One footnote per paragraph seems fine to me. The addition of footnotes to the lead was reverted because the [[wikipedia:lead section]] is supposed to summarise the article; footnoting a summary doesn't make sense. I kept the {{tl|fact}} for the stuff about the music because that stuff really doesn't have any sources. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-== Paul and Pope John Paul ==
-As much as I like the story, I can find absolutely no evidence of its truth, and it comes from a domain with a recent history of vandalism.  I've marked with citation needed for now, but will probably delete if no one can corroborate.  [[User:MBlume|MBlume]] 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
-== List of artists/bands to cover Yesterday ==
-I was wondering if anyone wanted to make a list of all the bands that have covered Yesterday?
-I'm not a HUGE fan of The Beatles, so I didn't want to start a list with inaccurate information. [[User:BadCRC|BadCRC]] 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-:[[WP:NOT]] a collection of indiscriminate information, so we don't as a rule include a list of every group to have covered a song (especially since there are thousands of cover versions for Yesterday). I don't have many covers of the song, but I know that some of those who have produced a cover include [[Ray Charles]] and [[Richard Clayderman]]. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 09:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-::"we don't as a rule include a list of every group to have covered a song (especially since there are thousands of cover versions for Yesterday)". You could turn that around and say that if any song deserves to have a list of artists that covered it, it would be "Yesterday". That's pretty discriminate. (Not that I'm advocating or editing such a list, mind you.) [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-== Difference between takes ==
-The article currently states: {{cquote|On take 1, McCartney can be heard giving chord changes to [[George Harrison]] before starting, but he does not appear to actually play. Take 2 had two lines transposed from the first take: "There's a shadow hanging over me"/"I'm not half the man I used to be".}}
-While it's true that take 2 has transposed lyrics compared to take 1, it should be noted that this is due to a vocal flub in take 1, not a re-working of the lyrics between takes, as is implied in the article. McCartney can clearly be heard smiling through the end of the second line and even more clearly in the "Oh" preceding "Yesterday came suddenly", indicating that he knew immediately that he flubbed the lyrics. <span style="font-size: 110%;">&mdash;'''[[User:GPHemsley|Gordon P. Hemsley]]'''→<span style="font-size: larger;">[[User talk:GPHemsley|&#x2709;]]</span></span> 05:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-== 3000 different recordings?? ==
-Summertime by George Gershwin is stated to have 13,985 recordings, why is this not mentioned?--[[User:Jaapkroe|Jaapkroe]] 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-== Lennon quote ==
-"We called it 'Scrambled Eggs' and it became a joke between us. We made up our minds that only a one-word title would suit, we just couldn't find the right one. Then one morning Paul woke up and the song and the title were both there, completed. I was sorry in a way, we'd had so many laughs about it."
-This quote appears in ''The Beatles' Anthology'' (p. 165) and the credited source lists that book as a reference though not specifically for that quote.  The actual quote says 'Scrambled Egg' rather than 'Scrambled Eggs'. [[User:Gr8white|Gr8white]] 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-== Full Lyrics To "Scrambled Eggs" ==
-Found this first set of lyrics to Yesterday, from Keith Badman’s  ''The Beatles Off The Record'' P.166:
-"Scrambled eggs /
-Have an omelette with some Muenster cheese /
-Put your dishes in the wash bin please /
-So I can clean the scrambled eggs
-"Join me do /
-There are lots of eggs for me and you /
-I’ve got ham and cheese and bacon too /
-So go get two, and join me do
-"Fried, or sunny side /
-Just aren’t right the mix-bowl begs /
-Quick, go get a pan, and we’ll scramble up some eggs, eggs, eggs, eggs
-Scrambled eggs /
-Good for breakfast, dinner time or brunch /
-Don’t buy six or twelve, buy a bunch /
-And we’ll have lunch on scrambled eggs"
-It’s interesting, as it appears McCartney went to a lot of trouble with these lyrics, almost as if “Scrambled Eggs” was more than just a working title.
-Anyway, is it worth putting into the article? --[[User:Patthedog|Patthedog]] 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-:Just read the copyright bit further up, seems that you've already covered this. Does that mean that the lyrics can't even appear here? --[[User:Patthedog|Patthedog]] 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-::The lyrics are fake in any case, see this article: [http://lifeofthebeatles.blogspot.com/2008/07/when-beatle-authors-get-conned.html]. [[Special:Contributions/69.196.137.181|69.196.137.181]] ([[User talk:69.196.137.181|talk]]) 05:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
-==Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles-singles-yesterday-uk.jpg==
-[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]
-'''[[:Image:Beatles-singles-yesterday-uk.jpg]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|boilerplate fair use template]], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with [[WP:FU|fair use]].
-Please go to [[:Image:Beatles-singles-yesterday-uk.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
-If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
-[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] ([[User talk:BetacommandBot|talk]]) 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-== Similarity between Yesterday and an old Italian song ==
-Is there any proof apart from the cited website? Perhaps a link with some audio/video sample could be posted if it exists... [[Special:Contributions/81.96.127.28|81.96.127.28]] ([[User talk:81.96.127.28|talk]]) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-:No trace of a recording of this song on the net today. Even from sheet music, I would be able to tell. However, if it was from 1895, as claimed, by the time "Yesterday" was written it would probably have been out of copyright anyway, so it scarcely matters. --'''[[User:Rodhullandemu|<font color="7F007F">'''Rodhullandemu'''</font>]]''' ([[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|Talk]]) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-::I think what matters is that we don't propagate a hoax (or a gross exaggeration).  The Antara report is  vague: the actual quote from Greco is only two words, and the statement "sounded remarkably similar"—to whom?  If this were truly notable, a mainstream news organisation or publisher would have covered it.  Not only is there no trace of a recording of the song, this story aside, there is no trace of any kind at all.  I propose to delete this para. from the article. — [[User:Wrapped in Grey|Wrapped in Grey]] ([[User talk:Wrapped in Grey|talk]]) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
-== Most performed composition of all time? ==
-: For starters it seems a pretty dubious claim, and as such I'm not sure it's worth perpetuating from an unsubstantiated source, even if cited.  That said, without any citation, it has no place in the article.  [[User:Jun-Dai|Jun-Dai]] ([[User talk:Jun-Dai|talk]]) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-::I'd have thought "[[Happy Birthday to You]]" would have a better claim to this. I don't have a ''Guinness Book of Records'' to hand, but I remember reading something about it. It may well be the song with most recorded versions, but that's not the same thing. --'''[[User:Rodhullandemu|<font color="7F007F">'''Rodhullandemu'''</font>]]''' ([[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|Talk]]) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-I always thought the most performed song was the one sung outside the pub at 11 o'clock that nobody can remember the words to. :)--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 10:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
-:I always wake up with a bad back after one of those nights, and I can never remember why. --[[User:Patthedog|Patthedog]] ([[User talk:Patthedog|talk]]) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
-== Genre ==
-I think it's rather [[Baroque pop]] than simply Pop. Why not to mention it in the infobox?--[[User:Betty kerner|Betty kerner]] ([[User talk:Betty kerner|talk]]) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-:In principle, that seems plausible, but considering that the referenced genre is entirely unsourced, I wouldn't see it lasting long. Do you have a citation for this? --'''[[User:Rodhullandemu|<font color="7F007F">'''Rodhullandemu'''</font>]]''' ([[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|Talk]]) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-== proposed merge ==
-I oppose this merge.  This article is about a song; the EP article is about a record.  Two different things.  [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] ([[User talk:Jgm|talk]]) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
-I oppose the merge also. The only reason to merge appears to be that the article about the EP is a stub. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
-* '''Oppose''' - [[:Yesterday (EP)]] could be regarded as a complete list (rather than a stub); a stub suggests there is more that should be added (maybe there is in this case - it will have been extensively reviewed). Plenty of album articles are little more than a list of the tracks. In any case, why merge to Yesterday rather than to one of the other 3 tracks? [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 09:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
-::It's been two full weeks with no defense of the proposal; I'm removing the tags.  [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] ([[User talk:Jgm|talk]]) 13:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
-==happy birthday==
-well,everybody celebrates yesterday's birhtday!  <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.193.113.66|82.193.113.66]] ([[User talk:82.193.113.66|talk]]) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-==Yesterday inspired by [[Besame Mucho]]?==
-Regarding the fears of [[Paul McCartney]] about the presumed imitation of Yesterday, we should pay attention to the following:
-Checking the scores of pieces from different composers, which were played by the Beatles, we should notice that in the famous song composed by Consuelo Velasquez "[[Besame Mucho]]", the musical structure of the intital phrases is very similar to the ones of Yesterday, furthermore, the harmonic composition, follow the same parameters in the two melodies, without one being a copy of the other.
-One should notice McCartney's inclination towards Latin American music, specially "Besame Mucho", which he sang and recorded at least twice without commercial interest.
-Recording "[[Till There Was You]]", was one of his ideas. The song is more or less a [[bolero]] sang in English by himself. [[Paul McCartney]] once wanted to be named by the pseudonymous of "Paul Ramone", another evidence of his Latin American inclination.
-There is another coincidence between these two songs: "Besame mucho" is the most often recorded and most popular spanish speaking song of the Twentieth Century--[[User:Amayamarquez|Marquez]] ([[User talk:Amayamarquez|talk]]) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
-one thing you surely got wrong, he never called himself Paul Ramon, he called himself Paul Ramone, that's why the ramones where named the ramones, after his old pseudonym.
-==Yesterday in films?==
-It would be interesting to list the films in which we can hear Yesterday; like for example Once upon a time in America. [[User:Eschette|Eschette]] ([[User talk:Eschette|talk]]) 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Eschette
-== Add "Classical Music" to the genre. ==
-You can't ignore the fact this song has Classical instruments and playing. If you were just listening to the background instruments it was a pure classical music song.
-I saw earlier someone added this and it was deleted so...
-Yeah I think it's a good idea... I mean, there isn't an official genre for that, and:
-Acoustic rock / Ballad for Paul and his guitar + Classical Music for the background instruments.
-What d'you say?  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pilmccartney|Pilmccartney]] ([[User talk:Pilmccartney|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pilmccartney|contribs]]) 20:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:No. [[User:Wiki libs|Wiki libs]] ([[User talk:Wiki libs|talk]]) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
-== blue seventh in cello line ==
-From the current article:
-{{quotation|The string arrangement supplements the song's air of sadness, especially in the groaning cello melody and its blue seventh[33] that connects the two halves of the bridge (on the line, "I don't know / she wouldn't say") }}
-The term "blue seventh" mentioned usually indicates a note played slighty lower in pitch from the seventh scale degree. In this case, key of F major, the seventh scale degree note is E, the leading tone. The blue seventh would be a slightly flatted E, its pitch falling somewhere between E and E♭.
-However, in the song the cello plays an E♭ proper. Or a least to my ear, very nearly an E♭. This is confirmed by Pollack, a fequently used source on this article and all Beatles music:
-:In response to a question he includes in his article. "There is a very strange (and interesting) seventh (E-flat in the key of F) played by the cello, in the middle of the bridge..." Pollack writes, "that E-flat in the cello is the only occurrence in the entire song of the flat seventh melodic degree and, showing up so late, lends an isolated, even surprising touch of the blues" - Pollack, Alan W (1 February 1993). "Notes on "Yesterday""
-:note: the term "seventh" used by the questioning writer is used correctly here in a general sense. This is different, however, then my use here - "seventh" as in, the seventh degree of the major scale(leading tone). More accuratly the sentence should read "...very strange (and interesting) ''flat seventh degree'' (E-flat in the key of F ''major'')..."
-The E♭ in key of F major is rather rare. It could be labled as: the subtonic(although this somewhat implies a context of a minor scale/key), the augmented sixth (in terms of intervals), or as Pollack calls it, the flat seventh melodic degree. Considering the latter, it is possible someone reading a source confused "flat seventh melodic degree" or other similar term with a seventh (an E) intentionally played slightly lower in pitch, "bent" or "flattened" by the cellist for effect.
-I am also considering the fact the WP article on [[blue note]] states "[a blue note] is a note sung or played at a slightly lower pitch than that of the major scale for expressive purposes. Typically the alteration is a semitone or less, but this varies among performers and genres"
-This implies that a flat seventh degree note proper could be labeled a "blue note". I agree with this as far as in loose or common usage it would be acceptable. However in a strict musicological sense, a flat seventh degree note(E♭ in key F major) should be called exactly what it is. The subtonic or flat seventh melodic degree. The term "blue note" should be reserved for certain "blue sounding" notes that fall in between the notes of the chromatic 12 TET musical scale.
-It is also possible the article's cited source - Cahill, Greg (June-July 2005). "Encore: It Was 40 Years Ago Today..." is claiming that the note ''is'', in fact, a slightly flatted seventh. This would conflict with Pollack, but since I cannot access the Cahill source online, I don't know if this is the case or not.
-I would like to change "blue seventh" to "melodic flat seventh" or an equivalent, using the Pollack source, but I want to make sure I'm on the right track here. And if so, is this the best way to fix it? [[User:Racerx11|Racerx11]] ([[User talk:Racerx11|talk]]) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
-ehh, once again I've overworded. Let me sum it up in a nutshell.
-The article makes a sourced statement that the strange cello note is a blue note. I have a source stating its merely an E-flat. Are these the same thing? I believe they're not the same. If so, should we make a change?[[User:Racerx11|Racerx11]] ([[User talk:Racerx11|talk]]) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
-:I think you're right, it's not a blue note, it's just that an E-flat there produces a slightly bluesy effect, as Pollack says. However, I suggest keeping the wording and book cite (since the Pollack website, while informative, doesn't really appear to constitute as [[WP:RS|reliable]] a source), but fixing the erroneous wikilinking to [[blue note]]. It should just link "blue" to [[blues]]. I've gone ahead and done this, pending any further comment. [[User:PL290|PL290]] ([[User talk:PL290|talk]]) 18:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
-::Thanks, I will go along with that for now, but I feel the need to point out: Alan Pollock's notes on... series is already being used countless times as a source on many and most WP articles concerning Beatles music, including this one. No less than seven times in this article alone. [[User:Racerx11|Racerx11]] ([[User talk:Racerx11|talk]]) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
-:::Understood; my only reason for mentioning it is to recommend keeping the book cite too. [[User:PL290|PL290]] ([[User talk:PL290|talk]]) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
-::::Fair enough, whatever further edits I make, if any, I will keep the book cite.[[User:Racerx11|Racerx11]] ([[User talk:Racerx11|talk]]) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
-::::I made a couple minor edits and noticed another problem. The viola line described in the same paragraph alludes to the decending run F-C-B♭-A, is also the vocal melody in the word "day-ay-ay-ay" at the end of the line "now I long for yes-ter-day-ay-ay-ay" and refers to this as the segue from the chorus back to the verse. This is fine except its calling it the end of the "chorus" and we were refering to the very same section of the song as the "bridge". It could be either but to be consisten it has to be one or the other. I chose bridge because the real "[[hook (music)|hook]]" of the song is the at the end of each verse. The melody in "I believe in yesterday" and hummed at the end. This hook can serve as the proper "chorus" if one insists there be a chorus.
-::::I made the change and I am satisfied with it now.[[User:Racerx11|Racerx11]] ([[User talk:Racerx11|talk]]) 22:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
-== Genre ==
-There's nothing "baroque" about yesterday... it should be "classical music, pop" [[User:Pilmccartney|Pilmccartney]] ([[User talk:Pilmccartney|talk]]) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
-== 1st number one without any percussion ? ==
-Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so please can you offer assistance?
-I heard on the radio that Yesterday was the very first no 1 in the Uk charts without any percussion (the vast majority of course having drums playing the ''beat'' in a pop song - maybe one or two had some other percussion instrument (does anyone know - out of interest?). I believe Yesterday was unique in that the beat was played out by the bass strings of McCartney's guitar, with no other percussion instrument present.
-My article was reverted due to lack of a credible citation. Can anyone help with corroboration of this proposed information?  Thanks! [[User:Spursguy|Spursguy]] ([[User talk:Spursguy|talk]]) 16:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
-==Why a special section for the Wet Wet Wet cover?==
-Nothing in the last section on the Wet Wet Wet cover offers any clue as to why it would merit special mention over the thousands of other covers.  Perhaps an overzealous Wet Wet Wet fan?  Seems like that should be omitted. [[Special:Contributions/63.139.189.34|63.139.189.34]] ([[User talk:63.139.189.34|talk]]) 19:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
-:Please let consensus be reached; this can only be achieved given a reasonable time for discussion. It seems to be usual for notable cover versions that have charted to be included in the song's article- see [[Video Killed the Radio Star]], for example. Arguably, this might mean including versions by [[Matt Monro]], [[Marianne Faithfull]] and [[Ray Charles]] as well, but until that happens, perhaps we should keep it. If it happens, there would be little objection to forking the article into [[Cover Versions of "Yesterday" that Charted]]. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
-== "original" version on Jimmy Fallon ==
-The article already mentions Paul singing "original" version "Scrambled Eggs" with Jimmy Fallon on Late Night. But really this version is most probably was written for the show (there are some speculation on various boards about who actually wrote it and if Sir Paul had a hand in this). I already wanted to fix the info, but then I realized that there's actually no source of information. While everybody agrees that this is a joke, but it's really only a speculation. On the other hand, currently article makes one think that this was actual performance of a real temporary lyrics. So, one is speculation, another is (most probably) just wrong. What should be done in this case? --[[Special:Contributions/188.134.32.80|188.134.32.80]] ([[User talk:188.134.32.80|talk]]) 11:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
-== Reception and Kanye West ==
-Can anyone explain how the uncited reference to the lyric by Kanye West relates to the reception of the song? It seems to me that is simply an attempt to link West's name to this song. Is there any way that a vote can be held to decide whether this sentence be removed? --[[Special:Contributions/95.112.222.74|95.112.222.74]] ([[User talk:95.112.222.74|talk]]) 02:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
-== 1600 covers..... but.... ==
-It should be noted if those covers were done by professorial artists and if they were released professorially or not. Because 1600 just has me thinking youtube, Guinness or not...  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.81.199.45|67.81.199.45]] ([[User talk:67.81.199.45|talk]]) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:Updated to say 1600 by 1986—I don't think they had Youtube then... [[User:Uniplex|Uniplex]] ([[User talk:Uniplex|talk]]) 09:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
-According to "The Compleat Beatles" this was 1600 recorded and released versions. The "Summertime" note is, I believe, spurious. There may well be 25,000 recorded versions of performances of Summertime, but these are not released versions, they are probably almost _all_ merely recordings of the work being performed. This is akin to buskers or piano bar players or cover bands recording their versions of Yesterday and adding that to Yesterday's total. I think the Summertime note is irrelevant and apples to oranges and should be removed. Yesterday, by many sources, claims the most professionally recorded and released versions of any song. The GBWR may not be completely definitive, but it is an accepted, well researched source, by all accounts. [[User:Tasterson|Tasterson]] ([[User talk:Tasterson|talk]]) 02:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
-== Contemporary reviews ==
-I came to this article looking for contemporary reviews of the song, as it was at the time unlike anything The Beatles had released before, or indeed unlike anything that had been released in pop music at the time. I wanted to see what original reviewers of the album had to say about this new direction and maturity for group, but there is nothing! Could there be a section added for this? [[User:Crazy Eddy|Crazy Eddy]] ([[User talk:Crazy Eddy|talk]]) 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-== Move request (May 2012) ==
-<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
-:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
-The result of the move request was: '''pages moved''' per [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] criteria (both educational value and readership usage per the stats provided), [[WP:NOTADICT]], and [[WP:NOTVOTE]] --  [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 11:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
+The result of the move request was: '''Move''' per agreement over [[WP:PRIMARY TOPIC]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>>&nbsp;[[User:Extorc|<span style="color:purple">Extorc</span>]].[[User_talk:Extorc|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</span> 12:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
+:<small>Close also endorsed by {{u|Amakuru}}, see below.</small>
 ----
+[[:Yesterday (Beatles song)]] → {{no redirect|Yesterday (song)}} – There have been several previous RMs here, but all focused on the two extreme options of simply ''Yesterday'' or the doubly-disambiguated ''Yesterday (Beatles song)''. Per [[WP:INCOMPDAB]] and [[WP:PDAB]], a partly-disambiguated title may still have a primary topic; a rule of thumb I often see used is whether the article gets more pageviews than all other candidates combined. Well, let's see. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=last-year&pages=Yesterday_(Beatles_song){{!}}Yesterday_(Black_Eyed_Peas_song){{!}}Yesterday_(Toni_Braxton_song){{!}}Yesterday_(Shanice_song) For the previous year]:
-* [[Yesterday (song)]] → [[Yesterday]]
-* [[Yesterday]] → [[Yesterday (disambiguation)]]
+* [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]: 241,137 pageviews in 2022
+* [[Yesterday (Toni Braxton song)]]: 5,210
-– This song is most certainly the primary topic for "yesterday", as one of the most covered songs ever. I wouldn't know which entry on the dab page even comes close to this. See also "[[Something]]", another Beatles song that uses a common English word, and which probably isn't even as notable as this song. [[User:The Evil IP address|The Evil IP address]] ([[User talk:The Evil IP address|talk]]) 15:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
+* [[Yesterday (Shanice song)]]: 1,061
-:'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Yeepsi|yeepsi]] ([[User Talk: Yeepsi|Time for a chat?]]) 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
+* [[Yesterday (Black Eyed Peas song)]]: 1,022
-*'''Oppose''' "Yesterday" is far too generic a name, and this article doesn't come close to the "more likely than all the other topics combined" standard. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
+That is a 33:1 pageview ratio in favor of the Beatles song over the three others combined. Similarly, [https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Yesterday WikiNav] shows that the Beatles song got 35.91% of outbound clicks from the ''[[Yesterday]]'' DAB in April, the highest of any song and the second-highest overall (after the recent film); no other song cracks the top 6 (which bottoms out at 1.8%). In addition to that technical data, there is the fact that the Beatles song is one of the most influential, most covered, and most popular songs of all time. I think there is a strong case here for it to be the primary topic for "Yesterday (song)". <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 18:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' If [[Yesterday]] was to be moved to [[Yesterday (disambiguation)]]; then what about the small piece of information briefly explaining what "yesterday" means.  Don't fix what ain't broken.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<font color="DarkSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">'''Wesley'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Wesley_Mouse|<font color="OrangeRed">☀</font>]][[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<font color="SaddleBrown" face="Tahoma">'''''Mouse'''''</font>]] 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''.  All the other uses are obscure, so this song is the primary topic.  As to the small piece of information about what the word yesterday means, it should not be there per [[WP:NOTADICT]].  --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 23:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''': In addition to the four songs listed above, there are about 25 other songs listed at [[Yesterday (disambiguation)]] with this title, and three of them (a total of seven) have articles devoted to them. That seems like a more diverse list of topics than the quintessential PDAB example, [[Thriller (album)|''Thriller'' (album)]]. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 19:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
+**Some of those songs are "Yesterdays". The three I listed are the only ones with articles. There's 10 listed that point to albums and 3 that point to artists. As noted at [[WP:INCOMPDAB]], there's been consensus to ignore non-article-worthy songs in INCOMPDAB situations. I don't think that any of these non-notable songs, none of which get a significant percentage of outbound clicks, shift the analysis much. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 20:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' too generic, and no one will search "Yesterday" without +Beatles or +song in any case. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 00:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
+**:Ah, yes, the Ashley Roberts song article was blanked and redirected in 2021, and some of the others are "Yesterdays". One caveat I suggest though is not to consider "not having an article devoted specifically to the song" synonymous with necessarily being "a non-notable song". Disambiguation is about topics, not articles, and may consider topics discussed as a subtopic within an article that is primarily about something else (such as an album or artist). I don't know whether that distinction matters here or not{{snd}} perhaps not. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 22:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' clearly the primary topic is the temporal concept of "yesterday", and it should redirect to the article covering temporal concepts, and how various cultures treat "yesterday" differently, etc. [[Special:Contributions/65.92.180.19|65.92.180.19]] ([[User talk:65.92.180.19|talk]]) 03:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
-**There is no such article. --[[User:The Evil IP address|The Evil IP address]] ([[User talk:The Evil IP address|talk]]) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' <s>malformed and early close</s> Other songs. See [[WP:DISAMBIGUATION]]. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
+*:While you certainly can oppose the RM, it isn't malformed and there is no reason to early close.  Please see [[WP:ETIQ]]. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 21:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
+::Okay. Well, I'll strike "malformed and early close" - but this is a proposal contrary to WP:PT and WP:TITLE. Why would we deliberately ambiguate an article title in this case? [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 12:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''': I am very sympathetic to the argument in favor of this move, as I don't believe that non-article uses should be considered.  But I can't help thinking that a significant number of people searching for "Yesterday" might actually be looking for information on the day before the current date.  I don't know if there's a good way to get them to that information, but there's a strong argument that we should at least take it into account.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 16:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose'''. No reason at all to move this to an incomplete disambiguation title. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 03:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
-**Most operating systems have a built-in calendar that is far more easily accessible than Wikipedia.  — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Georgia">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</font></span>]] 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
+*:{{ping|Gonnym}} There <em>were</em> reasons given, those being {{tq|a 33:1 pageview ratio}} between the Beatles song and other songs titled "Yesterday"; {{tq|35.91% of outbound clicks from the ''[[Yesterday]]'' DAB}}; and {{tq|the fact that the Beatles song is one of the most influential, most covered, and most popular songs of all time}}. <span class="nowrap">~~[[User:lol1VNIO|lol1]][[Special:contribs/Lol1VNIO|<span style="color:#D11D13">VNIO</span>]] (<small>I made a mistake?</small> '''[[User talk:lol1VNIO|<span style="color:#006400">talk to me</span>]]''')</span> 09:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
-***Indeed, but most people are not rational.  Come to think of it, though, I '''Support''', with the addition of a hatnote linking either to Wiktionary or to the article on the previous days date (calculated with parser functions).  A hatnote will suffice to capture any wayward searches.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Support''', the Beatles song is primary and has long-term historical significance. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
+*'''Weak oppose''' I'd normally expect more like 1 in 100 or at least in in 50. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]])  18:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''': Whether we call the disambiguation page [[Yesterday]] or [[Yesterday (disambiguation)]], I agree the disambiguation page should have a link to the "article covering temporal concepts".  So what is that page?  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Support'''.  Thresholds vary for when "incomplete disambiguation" is appropriate, but my own preferences are solidly met here.  The Beatles song is many many many times more notable than all the rest combined per page view stats.  It's more prominent than the non-song meanings, too.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
-**There is none because the term has no ''encyclopedic'' value.  This is an encyclopedia not a phone app and most users are smart enough to search for something like "[[time]]" for info on time concepts.  — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Georgia">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</font></span>]] 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Support'''. I would normally be against a specific song having the primary title whenever other songs with the same title have separate articles. That being said, I do think there is a strong case to be made for this being the primary topic. It has the page-views to support it, and there is just a strong long-term historical significance. If this change is made, I think a hat-note redirecting users to the disambiguation page and to the links for other songs with this title would be beneficial. [[User:Aoba47|Aoba47]] ([[User talk:Aoba47|talk]]) 21:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
+<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
-*'''Oppose''': Considering the large number of articles titled Yesterday, it would be presumptuous to assume that a user would be searching for ''this'' Yesterday. [[User:Piriczki|Piriczki]] ([[User talk:Piriczki|talk]]) 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
+</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
-**Presumptuous, but what if it's true?  — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Georgia">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</font></span>]] 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' – as the title of 3 notable films, 5 notable songs, and several other notable things and a well-known meaning not as a title, ''Yesterday'' is too ambiguous to be hijacking for one meaning as "primary".  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
-**At least the songs are definitely less notable than this one, and I have my doubts about the other items, too. --[[User:The Evil IP address|The Evil IP address]] ([[User talk:The Evil IP address|talk]]) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Question''' - Are there any reports that would show where Wikipedia visitors go after they get to the current [[Yesterday]] disambiguation page?  If 95% went to [[Yesterday (song)]], that would be a much more compelling argument than if only 25% did.  Thanks!  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
-**Well, we don't have stuff like Google Analytics, but we can use [http://stats.grok.se/ stats.grok.se]. So far, the song "Yesterday" has been viewed about [http://stats.grok.se/en/201205/Yesterday%20%28song%29 14,000 times], while the closest match, the TV channel, has been viewed [http://stats.grok.se/en/201205/Yesterday%20%28TV%20channel%29 1,000 times]. Unfortunately, there are no stats for the Wiktionary entry about "yesterday", AFAIK. --[[User:The Evil IP address|The Evil IP address]] ([[User talk:The Evil IP address|talk]]) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''. "Yesterday" primarily refers to the day before today, not the song. The dab page is fine where it is. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] ([[User talk:Jafeluv|talk]]) 10:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
-**At [[Wiktionary]] it does but this is [[WP:NOTDICT|not a dictionary]].  — [[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Georgia">&nbsp;'''AjaxSmack'''&nbsp;</font></span>]] 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-If you are participating in the discussion, you should be aware of [[WP:MOSDAB]] and you might be able to get some assistance, clarification and other help from people who hang out at [[WT:DAB]].  --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 01:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''', absent evidence of primacy per [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]: a topic is primary if it is much more likely than any other topic and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought. Currently, 10 other articles share the "Yesterday (''X'')" namespace, and primacy would need to be demonstrated above all combined. [[User:ENeville|ENeville]] ([[User talk:ENeville|talk]]) 21:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
-::Stats from [http://stats.grok.se/ stats.grok.se] for the last 90 days:
-::{| class="wikitable"
-!Article Name
-!align="right"|Stats
-|-
-|[[Yesterday]] [the disambiguation page] || 10,807
-|-
-|'''[[Yesterday (song)]]''' || '''78,215'''
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (Shanice song)]] || align="right"| 465
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (Toni Braxton song)]] || align="right"| 4,600
-|-
-|[[Yesterdays (1933 song)]] || align="right"| 1,803
-|-
-|[[Yesterdays (Guns N' Roses song)]] || align="right"| 4,740
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (EP)]] || align="right"| 2,426
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (Grave Digger EP)]] || align="right"| 319
-|-
-|[[Yesterdays (Keith Jarrett album)]] || align="right"| 337
-|-
-|[[Yesterdays (Yes album)]] || align="right"| 3,545
-|-
-|[[Yesterdays (band)]] || align="right"| 512
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (1981 film)]] || align="right"| 322
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (2002 film)]] || align="right"| 2,091
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (2004 film)]] || align="right"| 5,748
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (TV channel)]] || align="right"| 7,543
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (Grey's Anatomy)]] || align="right"| 931
-|-
-|[[Yesterday (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)]] || align="right"| 460
-|-
-|'''''Total excluding "Yesterday (song)" and the DAB page''''' || '''''35,842'''''
-|}
-::Is this what you wanted to see?  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 01:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Comment.''' GoingBatty has done what should have been done from the start, of course. Thank you! (I have boldly edited the last line of that table for clarity.)
-:Now, what do those statistics reveal, and what practical relevance do they have?
-:'''What the stats reveal'''
-:* They show that enquirers are looking for all sort of things under the rubric "yesterday" (a very common English word, which after all is why it is so often chosen as a title).
-:* They show that of the total pageviews (124,864), just 8.7% went to the DAB page. We have no idea what those enquirers were after: the Beatles song? another song? another topic covered by a WP article? the general temporal concept of "yesterday"? a conspectus of possible meanings for the term "yesterday" (so that they were entirely satisfied by the DAB page, and sought nothing beyond what it shows)?
-:* They show that of the pageviews that bypassed the DAB page (91.3% of the grand total), 68.6% went directly to the Beatles song article, but we have little idea how many of ''those'' pageviews were satisfied: by comparison, 10.2% went directly to articles for songs called "Yesterday[s]", but many such enquirers might have wanted those instead when they selected the imprecise title "Yesterday (song)", which describes their target just as accurately as it describes the Beatles song. Not all readers will have noticed the hatnote at the Beatles song article; ''we'' know about those, but not all readers do.
-:* They show a lot more, which others might like to elucidate.
-:'''The practical relevance of the stats'''
-:* They confirm for us that the Beatles song is the most famous and the most enquired after.
-:* They do not ''remotely'' suggest that any loss of precision, by dropping the qualifier "(song)", would benefit any readers, in any way, anywhere.<br>'''Those believing otherwise should show us an argument for such a benefit, taking into account how Wikipedia search prompts operate, and how Google search results operate.'''
-:* They do suggest that ''greater'' precision would be helpful: [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]].
-:☺ ♫♪!
-:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>[[User_talk:Noetica |Tea?]]</small></sup> 01:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''. Ridiculous. But what a superb example of how statistics can mislead! This proposal and its arguments should receive some serious scrutiny! [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 08:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]].  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
-==Yesterday is too generic==
-Disambiguation should be reinstated. I came here not looking for a song. The last commenter above (Andrewa) is spot-on. It's misleading to hijack such a generic word using statistic misapplication. By same shoddy trick the page titled "Apple" should be redirected to the company and not the fruit since that's what the stat indicates. --[[User:Loginnigol|Loginnigol]] ([[User talk:Loginnigol|talk]]) 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
-:What were you looking for?  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
-::I was looking for info on Yesterday (similar to [[Present|this]]). The more relevant & ontopic question you should ask is, why are a clique of pop star band fanatic editors so obsessed with hijacking a generic every-day term in an ENCYCLOPEDIA to express their rabid worship and adoration? [[User:Loginnigol|Loginnigol]] ([[User talk:Loginnigol|talk]]) 13:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::I agree with Loginnigol and the opposers in the move discussion above. This is the silliest article move I've seen. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] was against the move in that discussion and I'm not basing that on "votes." That move should be sent to [[WP:Move review]]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-::::{{ping|Loginnigol}} - Once you discovered that [[Yesterday]] is an article about the Beatles song, did you find a Wikipedia article that contained the information you're looking for?  Or to ask another way, if this was article was to be renamed to [[Yesterday (song)]] or [[Yesterday (The Beatles song)]], what would you want users to see when they type [[Yesterday]]?  Thanks!  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 04:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::::What I expected to discover is either ('''1st option''') an article or ('''2nd option''') a redirect to a broader article daling with days or ('''3rd option''') let that be the disambiguation page with just a sentence or two written in the "refers to" and a list of the other alternative things that are associated with the word. All these three options were not taken - instead a clique of rabid 1960s pop music fanatics decided to hijack the word for a '''commercial''' product - fraudulently pretending as it wasn't an extremely common English word that is literally spoken by a person almost every single day! [[User:Loginnigol|Loginnigol]] ([[User talk:Loginnigol|talk]]) 09:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-::::::I don't think they were pretending it's not an English word - they were tying to figure out what people who search Wikipedia for "Yesterday" really want.  Other than a dictionary definition of the word, what information about "yesterday" were you looking for?  Are you going to write an article about "Yesterday" the common word, or are you going to suggest where [[Yesterday]] should redirect to?  If you ended up at [[Yesterday (disambiguation)]], where would you go from there to get the info you wanted?  [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-:Indeed, it's hard to imagine from the above discussion how the RM closed for move.  This needs to be fixed.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-== Attempted editing of, paraphrasing now, the structure discussion in the article re the song "Yesterday" was aborted...as I have a gig to go to and the referencing format required in Wiki does not fit what I would like to report as my reference. ==
-Hello, I am new to the idea of revising Wikipedia articles.
-I simply attempted to revise and more accurately report the chord structure of this song "Yesterday" in the section of the article, if I recall, and I am probably paraphrasing its name, called "Structure of the Song". I have 58 years of learning to render songs on the keyboard by ear.  This means I hear it, i.e. I hear the actual artist(s) singing and/or playing his/her/their instruments, seek the chord structure, the movements by the "bass" notes of the music between chords, other "additions" played by the various voices and instrument to the chord, and the notes hit by possible singer(s) of a song, and then I play the song as I hear these things on my  piano or whatever keyboard I have at the time.
-Wikipedia's formal approach to editing caused me some difficulties, so I stopped.  Mostly, the referencing rules of Wikipedia were a challenge to me.  How does on "reference" what one "hears"?  I don't know....
-Thank you Wikipedia for this fine article, although I wish I had the time to fix the purported chord structure of this song given in your article by one Pollack in 1993.  Indeed, as at least this man BENSON writing this hears the song, there are several errors in these two paragraphs about the two "parts" of the song's structure...errors can be clearly seen there regarding the  chord descriptions, in particular. This is quite sad to see on the "most important" or whatever, song of the 20th century.  So, everyone will see the incorrect information given by Pollack.. This is not meant as any attempt to criticize the fine reputation of M. Pollack, merely to suggest that some important chords he/she describes that are in the song are either missing from Pollack's description, or improperly described, at least in this man BENSON's point of view, I. E. from his "ears" point of view.......So good by for now to Wikipedia editing for me.....I wish you all of the best, but I have a gig to prepare for...................  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Corky at|Corky at]] ([[User talk:Corky at|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Corky at|contribs]]) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+===Discussion after close===
-== Requested move 2==
+{{ping|Extorc}} with respect and assuming good faith, I have reverted your non-admin close and placed a message on your Talk page. This is such a high visibility move contrary to en.wikipedia guidelines, it could have a knock on effect elswhere in the article corpus, and is highly controversial, so an admin closer would be preferable. At least a relist would be expected at this 7 day mark. But if you push through your close again I will not revert a second time. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 12:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
-{{requested move/dated|Yesterday (song)}}
+:{{Ping|In ictu oculi|Extorc}} following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru&diff=1156156715&oldid=1156097974 a request by Extorc on my talk page], I'm reinstating Extorc's close here. Procedurally, it was not legitimate to simply reverse the close simply because it was a non-admin close - [[WP:RMNAC]] is clear that not being an admin is not sufficient ground on its own to reject a close. Also, having looked over the discussion I think it's a fair close, the policy explicitly allows for partial primary topics if a sufficient bar is met, which a majority here felt it did. I'm happy to also put my endorsement on this close as an admin, if that makes things clearer for you.. If you still wish to challenge the close after this, the course of actino would be to discuss it with Extorc, perhaps mention some aspects you think they failed to consider. Then, if you're still not happy after discussion with Extorc, you can file an entry at [[WP:MRV]]. Cheers and I hope you're both having a good weekend otherwise. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
+::Fair enough. Although I personally think that 3 oppose and 3 support would have been better served by a relist, No I do not think any further action is needed at this point. We'll see how the change benefits readers over the next year(s). [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Original 2,200 cover versions citation ==
-[[:Yesterday]] → {{no redirect|Yesterday (Beatles song)}} – The above move request was clearly against this, and yet it was moved anyway. That is the silliest reading of consensus I've ever heard. It should be undone. [[User:Wirenote|wirenote]] ([[User talk:Wirenote|talk]]) 16:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
+Re {{diff|Yesterday|next|1161699614}}, I did a little bit of digging in search of the original source. The citation just added for the "2,200 covers" claim is to [https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/is-the-beatles-yesterday-really-the-most-covered-song-of-all-time.html/ cheatsheet.com], but this in turn cites [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Beatles/LDUuIm74pdMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=guinness+beatles+yesterday+2,200&pg=PA86&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=guinness%20beatles%20yesterday%202%2C200&f=false a "book" by PediaPress, based on Wikipedia] (quote: "BBC News named his song "Yesterday" the most covered song in history—by over 2,200 artists"). The citation ([625]) is not available in the Google Books version of the Pedia Press book. However, the citation for this claim in the [[Paul McCartney]] article, where the Pedia Press book presumably got it from, is to [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/334373.stm a BBC article from 1999]. So that's the citation I've gone with. God knows where the BBC got their information from. [[User:Dave.Dunford|Dave.Dunford]] ([[User talk:Dave.Dunford|talk]]) 07:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''. It should never had been moved as there was no convincing case of [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|primary topic]]. The first criterion is ''A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.''; page views of 2-1 certainly does not suggest ''much more likely than any other topic''. [[User:Zarcadia|Zarcadia]] ([[User talk:Zarcadia|talk]]) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
-* '''Support'''. "Yesterday" should be or redirect to the disambiguation page. [[User:Coreyemotela|Coreyemotela]] ([[User talk:Coreyemotela|talk]]) 20:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
-* Or move to [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
-*<s>Strong</s> '''oppose''' - it is not easy for an article to be written on the concept of yesterday. This is really the only encyclopedic claimant to primary topic (a slew of minor instances on [[Yesterday (disambiguation)]] notwithstanding. It bears mentioning that this was a malformed move request, anyway. [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]] 21:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
-::[[User:Red Slash]], now written, a stub at least, and surprisingly it was relatively easy to source and write. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 04:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::[[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]], you're kidding me! No way! Thank you on behalf of the encyclopedia and readers everywhere. That's really cool! I loved your article. Okay, maybe this page could move... I'm not sure yet. [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]] 06:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' move to [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]] :: [[Yesterday (disambiguation)]] is a long list of other uses of the word, and the Beatles are no longer current and first in most people's minds. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 21:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''. The stats in the previous move request show that the song is the clear [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] as far as ''encyclopedic'' uses of "Yesterday". Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTADICTIONARY]]. [[User:Dohn joe|Dohn joe]] ([[User talk:Dohn joe|talk]]) 22:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' Doesn't meet [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]. The concept is what people think of first - Zarcadia nailed it. '''''[[User:Taylor Trescott|<span style="color:#B6B3FF; font-family: Courier">Taylor Trescott</span>]]''''' - <sup>[[User talk:Taylor Trescott#top|my talk]]</sup> + <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Taylor Trescott|my edits]]</sub> 23:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
-*:But there's not even an article on the concept - just a link to Wiktionary, right? [[User:Dohn joe|Dohn joe]] ([[User talk:Dohn joe|talk]]) 23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
-*::Article or no article, the song isn't the primary topic in my view, and the main page should be the DAB. '''''[[User:Taylor Trescott|<span style="color:#B6B3FF; font-family: Courier">Taylor Trescott</span>]]''''' - <sup>[[User talk:Taylor Trescott#top|my talk]]</sup> + <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Taylor Trescott|my edits]]</sub> 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::::The purpose of DAB pages and PRIMARYTOPICs is to quickly navigate the user to the information we have on what they are looking for.  With that in mind, the song wins hands down, as far as I can see.  To me, this is the main point of discussion here:  Can the PRIMARYTOPIC be a topic that we don't have a page for?  To me, it is makes it very inefficient to include non-page topics in the possible list of PRIMARYTOPICs.  --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 04:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' How the hell did it take so long to find this out?--[[User:Jojhutton|<font color="#A81933">JOJ</font>]] [[User talk:Jojhutton|<font color="#CC9900"><sup>Hutton</sup>]]</font> 01:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support''', but [[User:Wirenote]], can you please amend RM as per [[User:Anthony Appleyard]]: according to [[WP:SONGDAB]] we should not move to ambiguous disambiguation (song) because of [[Yesterday (Toni Braxton song)]] and [[Yesterday (Shanice song)]] should move to [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]. There is no primary topic. [[Yesterday (time)]] could easily be written, and sourced, but even without it there is still no primary topic. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 01:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' - As I read the current statistics, a vast majority of the people who arrive at this page are happy about reaching here and do not click through to the DAB page.  --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 05:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-::That's because it's here. Also we have now way of knowing how many people are "happy" any more than how many are violently pissed off. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 06:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::Agreed.  They may not have been happy, but unless they were exceptionally high strung or not especially interested in the topic they were looking for, they would click the DAB.  I stand by my argument.  Putting it in numbers (just as a guide), changing the status quo would, in my opinion, increase the average amount of clicks it would take someone to find the right page for the "Yesterday" concept they are looking for. --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 03:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::::[[User:Jwy]], how or why would someone looking for [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]] walk past Yesterday (Beatles song) and click [[Yesterday]]?  [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 01:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
-{{od}}
-At least as things are now (and I think have been for a while - if I'm wrong, someone give the history here, its important when looking at the stats), [[Yesterday]] is the song.  Someone entering Yesterday in the search box would get to the song, be "happy" and not click the dab link.  If entering Yesterday brought them to the DAB page (as proposed), they would have to click the song link to get to where they want to go.  --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 03:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
-:I'm sorry, but I don't understand this answer, perhaps my fault, but let me restate the question: the situation prior to the problematic close above was that someone typing in "Yesterday" got the choices [[Yesterday]], [[Yesterday (TV channel)]], [[Yesterday (song)]] - the question is why would anyone walk past [[Yesterday (song)]] to click [[Yesterday]] if they were looking for [[Yesterday (Beatles song)]]??? [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 04:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
-::I'm unclear on the history.  When entering Yesterday brought you to the DAB page (the "choices" page you mention), someone looking for the song would have to click a second time to get to what they need.  Those looking for other yesterday topics would have to click to the DAB page ("for other uses" link), then their topic.  If I am correct in interpreting that the number of visits to the song page are significantly higher than anything else, then the status quo ([[Yesterday]] being the song) is the most efficient arrangement.  To me, that's a reasonable metric for choosing.  --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 03:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' "yesterday" is not the song. Clearly the song isn't the primary topic of "yesterdays", and that the past is the primary topic of yesterday. -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.171.126|65.94.171.126]] ([[User talk:65.94.171.126|talk]]) 06:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' per PRIMARYTOPIC and to make it much easier to spot incorrect incoming links. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 17:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''. There is no other encylcopedic topic for the term that can claim to be a primary topic. '''[[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#000000; font-family:serif">Calidum</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Calidum|<span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Talk To Me</span>]]</sup>''' 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
-** Yesterday is a synonym of the [[past]] which is an encyclopedic topic. The day yesterday is part of the period [[yesterday (time)]]. And that is the primary usage and primary topic of yesterday in the world at large. -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.171.126|65.94.171.126]] ([[User talk:65.94.171.126|talk]]) 05:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
-***(redacted)[[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#000000; font-family:serif">Calidum</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Calidum|<span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Talk To Me</span>]]</sup>''' 05:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
-**** The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Past&oldid=4316357 past] article was created in 2004. The primary topic of "yesterday" is the [[past]] (either as a day in the past, or as the entire period called the past) -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.171.126|65.94.171.126]] ([[User talk:65.94.171.126|talk]]) 05:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''. Doesn't the word "yesterday" have other meanings other than as suggested by a gang of balding 60s sycophants?  How important is the song to a Lady Gaga fan, to somebody interested in the philosophy of time? Or just a simple question about "the past." There is nothing that should have primarytopic over a dicdef. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
-::No need to get [[WP:PERSONAL|personal]].  My comments are based on the statistics.  No other page, especially the DAB page, has more hits.  Why not just put a wikitionary link box on this page? --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 16:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
-:::I think you should look beyond the self-deprecating joke. --[[User:Richhoncho|Richhoncho]] ([[User talk:Richhoncho|talk]]) 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
-::::I am (but for the one sentence).  It appears to be important to the current users of wikipedia. --John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 22:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Support'''. One of our editors has taken it upon himself to alleviate that lack of a primary topic article by writing [[Yesterday (time)]]. I note that [[today]] and [[tomorrow]] are both disambiguation pages. I would propose that there should be a single article combining the temporal concepts of [[yesterday, today, and tomorrow]], and that all three titles should redirect there as the clear primary topic of the terms (and the topics for which all others by those names are named). [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
-** Are you proposing the title "Yesterday, today, and tomorrow" for such a combined article? Not sure how I feel about that. Anyhow, we can address that separately after the present proposal is resolved, I think. —&nbsp;'''[[User:Jaydiem|Jaydiem]]'''&nbsp;([[User talk:Jaydiem|talk]]) 23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)