Talk:Beautiful Day

Sanctus Real

We used to have info on their cover. What happen?--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub?

Is this artical still just a stub? --T-rex 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's not. I removed the tag. --Kristbg 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

"Apparently, the Edge brought the song to the band, and Bono was unsure, given his explorations into electronic music, but there was a "look" exchanged, and the song was them."

Yeah, I'm not sure about that either. --Kristbg 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

im pretty sure thats false.--Zepher25 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed it then.--Kristbg 13:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote the song?

It is a taxiway

"...with scenes of the band playing on a runway interspliced with large jets taking off and landing overhead...".

I think they are actually in a taxiway (yellow line in the middle, blue lights in the edges), not in a runway. This explains how they were able to film the video (closing a runway in LFPG would have been complicated).

And yes, aircraft can't takeoff or land in a taxiway like is shown in the video... Maybe we should say this in the article?--Vittau 05:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Always????

This story about "Always" name is interesting, but lacks of any substance, because of that, I remove it, till concerning citation be added.

--Sebelk 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"...helping to launch the album to multi-platinum status and is currently the most successful single."

I'm not too familiar with the song, is this saying that it is the most successful single on the album?

Fair use rationale for Image:Beautiful Day.jpg

Image:Beautiful Day.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can it be mentioned that some have called this song plagiarized from an A-ha song called "the sun always shines on tv" I've also heard that bono has yelled this out while playing beautiful day live I really have no knowledge on this issue, but if someone else knows anything about it i think it should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.26.56 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Covers

Paul Oakenfold also does an electronic version of this song. It's more of a remix than a cover, though. Not sure if it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friloc (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Remixes?

I found two remixes of this song. --72.87.59.111 (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lee DeWyze's American Idol cover

I should have known this would happen and open up this discussion sooner, but alas hindsight is 20/20. On the most recent season of American Idol, Lee Dewyze covered the song. As the winner of the program, the cover is being released as his first single. The question is whether his cover is notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. Earlier I reverted a section on his cover that contained only two sentences (essentially saying "This is his first single. It was released on this date"). No other content was present outside of an infobox. I reverted it, but was soon reverted back and so am opening this discussion to see whether the cover is notable enough for its own section.

In my mind, two sentences is not enough notability to warrant a subsection and infobox devoted to the cover. Per WP:NM, an article should not exist if there is not enough information to demonstrate it's notability. This includes no charting, no recording or composition history, etc. For me this applies to sections within other articles as well. If there are only two short sentences that are devoid of any useful or important information or context, there should not be a section for it We have List of cover versions of U2 songs (including a subsection for "Beautiful Day") to list stuff like this. This cover is only being considered for inclusion right now because the finale was last night. Three or four months down the road there would be no reason to include it. Yes, there are some U2 song articles which include (or have included) covers in their articles; "Where the Streets Have No Name (I Can't Take My Eyes off You)" was until recently part of the "Where the Streets Have No Name" article, and "One" has its own section for the take by Mary J. Blige (though judging by some recent comments, this may also be split into it's own article soon). These instances are the exception where a cover is notable enough for its own section, not the norm.

I just don't see how two sentences gives a cover enough notability for a section in the article, and I don't believe that such a section should exist. Perhaps a single sentence under a "Reception and legacy" section is warranted, but certainly not a full section and infobox. I've asked (and been granted) protection of the page so that there is no content dispute while this discussion takes place. Hopefully this discussion can be resolved in the days until the protection expires so that the content dispute does not resume afterwards. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I watched one bit of AI after many years but gave up on it when they used censored lyrics on another song. Darn. I would have liked to see "Beautiful Day". List of covers is enough at this time. That doesn't even have a reference. AI seems to be a very trendy thing. Not being a fan of the show i never heard of the last two winners and had to skim their articles to see who they are and what they have been up to. Being a winner is no guarantee of lasting success. If the cover reaches the popularity of U2+MJB's "One" then its own section and see how that grows with no prejudice to eventually being its own article if warranted at a future time. Though someone may just skip to creating the Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze) (or Beautiful Day (Lee Dewyze)) article so watching those might be good. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 01:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The single will chart on Billboard's next chart, so there must be a refrence to it on the song's page. When people try to look the single up (and they will), there must be a reference to it on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.63.254 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I already said that a reference to it, perhaps a sentence or two under Reception and legacy, is not something that I oppose. What I oppose is a full subsection for it because there is so little content. It's also a bit of original research to claim that it will chart when it hasn't done so yet. It's possible, but not guaranteed. And no, there isn't a "must" for mentioning it beyond what I suggested. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

All the previous winner's singles of American Idol have a full page and I don't understand why this song can't only have a small section! It will surely chart on Billboard next week. --Maxime9232 (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF; that other previous winners have had their first singles get their own articles has no bearing on this discussion. There is no point in having even a section if there is no information to go into it beyond "this was the first release by Lee DeWyze. It was released on this date. It charted at number __." Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should KEEP it and improve the section. We should do the same as the No Boundaries (song) page and do a section about the reception, the release history, charts, etc. The winners of the X Factor UK all release covers as debut single and they all have their section on pages : A Moment Like This, Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now), When You Believe, The Climb (song) and Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song). Just saying... --Maxime9232 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Noone is saying DELETE "Beautiful Day". Quite the opposite. When the guys who edit the U2 set their sights on a song, be it a single or a b-side, their aim is to make it a featured article. They are probably the most comprehensive song articles i have read. They are always being expanded. When a popular cover comes along it goes onto the List of cover versions of U2 songs. If it gains recognition in its own right it becomes a secondary section of the respective article (One (U2 song)#Cover versions). If that section is expanded to the extent that it can be self sustaining it is moved to it's own article (Where the Streets Have No Name (I Can't Take My Eyes off You)). At this point in time Lee DeWyze's cover has not charted, has not even been released. To create its own section or article is not in keeping with WP:CRYSTAL as the cover does not meet WP:NSONG. Not all of the WP:OTHERSTUFF you cite is written to a comparable standard; Hallelujah and The Climb are. The U2 song articles aim to be more than release info, track listing and charting. Beautiful Day is one of the U2 songs that is developed beyond that level. Hence any cover given its own section should be substantially filled out and properly referenced. As of writing this that can not be done. If the cover becomes as popular as you predict the article will be revised accordingly. For now there is not even a reference for Lee DeWyze's cover in the list of covers. Everything in its due time. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 22:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad, the cover had been released. Also, Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze Version) is not titled properly. There is also now disagreement about titling the separate article. Presently it is Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze song) which is misleading since it is not his song. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)This is a notable cover version of the song and will chart on next week's Billboard chart, which would be enough for the song to have its own article, so it should be able to have its own section on this article. Cover versions should not have their own article and that information should be merged into the original version article. I have a bigger problem with your actions, MelicansMatkin, you make three reversions in a 24-hour period, and then to avoid making that fourth you go to page protection to get your preferred version protected claiming this is a content dispute, but you made no effort to discuss here on the talk page until after you had asked for page protection. I also find it hypocritical to say the version cannot be mentioned here because it does not pass WP:NM, yet you can recreate an article for that version, which would in your opinion also not pass WP:NM.

Since you seem intent on the version having no mention here and a cover version should not have its own article, I am going to merge the information and make redirect to Lee DeWyze, until it charts within the week when it will be merged back into this article. Aspects (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you check your facts. I made the reversions and then requested semi-protection because I could see an edit war/content dispute brewing. I then immediately began this discussion by writing the opening message, which took me a good twenty minutes to do. By the time I clicked "Save page" the article had been given full protection by SlimVirgin some five minutes prior; not the semi-protection I requested, but a step beyond. I also did not create the article for the cover; Cassiojg did, if you check the edit history. I moved the article in the same minute as you made your edit, and I reverted it to avoid a double redirect; there was no other alterior reason behind it. Please do not bring any further assumptions of bad faith without at least checking your facts first.

I agree with you that the Lee DeWyze article is the best place to house the information; I do not think that it belongs on this article, and I do not think that your ultimatum of merging it back after next week's charts is a good one considering that there is no consensus for that (and as you can see from the comments above, I am not the only editor who thinks so). I opened this discussion to avoid a conflict, not to enhance it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"I am going to merge ..." Way to discuss things. You want it done your way and so it shall be done! Aspects, did you not chide Melicans for what you consider the same behaviour? There is mentioned, a dedicated section, and its own article. The latter two should meet WP:NSONG. Noöne is objecting to the content being included in a manner that is in keeping with the style of the rest of the article and the standard presentation of notable cover versions. As the separate article stands, i vote nay. A quote from a cover artist saying it is not really a song befitting him and his genre is just wrong to include in passing on the article about the song. That would work on his article or if it comes to it a properly titled article for his cover of the song, which by the way should not indicate it is Lee's song since he most certainly did not write it. Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze song) is a disambiguation for the primary artist or composer if the title of the work itself is in need of disambiguation from something like a novel or film, such as One (U2 song). Charting on iTunes is not meeting notability.

U2 articles get all sorts of edits to them. Melicans is one of the fourmostfrequent contributors to U2 articles. If anyone would know the consensus, standards, and style of the project's articles it would be him. He saw the importance of this discussion so he started it himself rather than telling those who would seek change to start the discussion or else leave as is. Arbitrarily deciding to disregard the discussion and threatening to enforce your will at a future date will not help anything. It may draw out the rest of the project members. "it shoots up through the stoney ground but there's no room, no space to rent in this town" "the traffic is stuck, you're not moving anywhere" "lend a hand in return for grace" "see the bird with a leaf in her mouth, after the flood all the colours came out" "it was a beautiful day" "you can teach me love" delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 02:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

When I stated "...until it charts within the week when it will be merged back into this article." that was not an "ultimatum of merging it back" as MelicansMatkin. It would an eventually that the version would get its own section in this article if it charts on the Billboard Hot 100 because then it would pass WP:NSONGS and have its own article if it were not a cover version. Since it would then be a notable cover version of a song it would have its own section in the article. If it charts what would be the objections to the cover version not having its own section as is done across Wikipedia song articles such as Ruben Studdard's version of "Flying Without Wings"? Aspects (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for misinterpreting it as an ultimatum, but it certainly seemed to me to be phrased in that way. As for your points, a charting would improve the notability of the cover but notability alone is not enough. From WP:NSONG, a subsection of WP:NM: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The U2 WikiProject applies the same standard to subsections for covers as it does for standalone articles; it's a general consensus built among the members over the years as some covers have been integrated into the articles. I do not believe that there is enough material to warrant such a subsection at this time, judging by the content on Lee DeWyze. It consists of two sentences and a brief quote. That is not enough for inclusion in this article in my book; not yet. To me, if it warrants enough information for a subsection then it should also be able to survive as it's own article. Perhaps that seems unfair, but they are the strict standards we are trying to build as we put out song articles; it's the reason why "Winter (U2 song)" has it's own article instead of a few sentences in No Line on the Horizon.

I won't use the "One" cover by Mary J. Blige as a minimum threshold for a subsection because I don't think it is a particularly good example for comparison. There is little content in that subsection either; arguably the only reason it is in the article is because U2 collaborated with her on that track. If that hadn't been the case, I don't think it would have survived in the article as long as it has. There is a lot of information lacking in the current "Beautiful Day" cover that needs to be addressed in depth before I would consider it as enough for a subsection: Who selected the song as a possibility? Why did Lee DeWyze choose it over the other possible songs? What influenced his decision? What was his opinion of the original song, and did that play a role in his selection? What was the reaction when people found out his choice, and how did they feel after the performance? Who came up with the arrangement? Why did they elect to use violins instead of more traditional rock instruments? Who sang the backing vocals? Get in as much detail from as many different perspectives as possible. Then it will be ready for not just a subsection, but an article in it's own right.

The above may seem overly harsh or detailed, but it is necessary for any article. Part of my reasoning is, I will admit, based on fear. The WikiProject has done a lot of hard work recently on improving a good number of U2 articles. "Beautiful Day" was one of my next targets for improvement. My fear is that the little amount of information available now will just be dumped into this article and left here with minimal editing over time, stagnating as the rest of the article improves. The article could never achieve GA or FA if that were the case. The WikiProject focuses on U2's material, not on covers or tributes by other artists. And I think it is utterly unfair for a cover with almost zero information to just be dumped in here and left while the U2 WikiProject is working harder than it ever has before to make every article halfway decent. Again, that is only part of the reasoning, but a valid one nonetheless. I would much rather see the cover get its own article before a section with minimal and skeletal information at best is just stuck in here to rot for a lengthy period of time before it is eventually removed and left unnoticed as the cover fades from the public's conscious. Work on the points I brought up above; I'll even assist you if I can find enough time. I'll gladly create a sandbox for it in the interim so that it can be worked on. That is the information that is needed before we can seriously consider integrating it into this article; and if it reaches that point, it should be ready for it's own article in any case. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe any cover versions are relevant to a song article, and their additions only add to the value and completeness of the article. In fact, if cover versions are not included in a good quality article or higher, I cannot imagine how the article should be ranked in such a way. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I already said multiple times I am not averse to a brief mention in the text, which would probably fit best in the Reception and legacy section. But a separate infobox and section? Absolutely not, not when there is almost zero information or content. That does not add value to the article, in detracts from it. Sometimes there are covers with enough information on them to warrant such a section (such as Susan Boyle's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream"), but as of this moment Lee DeWyze's cover is not one of them. What little information there is could easily be reduced to three or four short sentences, and that just isn't enough to warrant it's own section and infobox. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've actually gone in and made the addition. As I've continuously said, I'm not adverse to a brief mention in this section. But judging by all the different versions of the article and all the different additions that have been made, this is all the content that there is thus far that is worth merging. A subsection and infobox would be complete overkill. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you decide on the content of this article is fine by me, including what sections to have, whether an infobox is needed (if the single and/or Lee DeWyze becomes successful (that is, charts highly on the relevant Billboard Hot 100), eventually that's appropriate), and what sentences need to be verified. I'm just not advocating a separate article on the cover. Even a simple redirect of the cover is no problem, provided that he is mentioned somewhere in the article as briefly as you decide. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When will you put the section in the article though? Mr. Slinks (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the new version charts significantly, I think it merits a section in the article. (Most of the entries in List of cover versions of U2 songs are obscure efforts from tribute albums and the like.) The solution to the section having little text is to add coverage of his treatment of the song and the reaction it received. You can see some of this done at the article on this season's other 'coronation song', "Up to the Mountain (MLK Song)" (which has an unrelated U2 mention in it, btw). It still isn't quite enough to soak up all the space of the infobox, but it isn't totally jarring. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest merging Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze cover) into this article. I cannot think of any other cover songs that have separate articles from the original, and the cover song would have to be greatly modified from the original if that were to happen in my opinion. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further research, I stumbled upon Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions, a debate that's coming to a year now and it looks like there's no consensus. But my opnions still stand on this article. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The two should definitely be merged. The DeWyze version does merit a mention in the U2 article because of the cultural importance of American Idol, but it shouldn't have its own section (or infobox) unless it notably charts and additional reliable info is found. It definitely should not get its own article since the cover does not have enough recognition beyond the original. The current mention under Legacy is currently sufficient. AlbertusmagnusOP (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is now a consensus here that the version deserves its own section when it charts significantly and today the version debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at #24, so I am going to merge Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze cover) into the article. Aspects (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a bit presumptuous of you to declare that there is consensus for the cover to have its own section. Two (myself and deliriousandlost) are against, three (yourself, Maxime, and Wasted Time) are for and two (Tinlinkin and Albertusmagnus) are for a mention but not necessarily a section (indeed, only one of Albertusmagnus's two criterion for a section are available). 2:3:2; hardly what I would call consensus. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you read through Wikipedia:Consensus then because consensus is based not vote-counting, but on the quality of arguments. One side is saying that if the cover version passes WP:NSONGS, then it deserves its own section in this article as is done for other cover versions everywhere else on Wikipedia. Your argument, in my opinion, seems to be that no matter how successful the cover version is that it would never have its own section. At what point would you think it is acceptable for the DeWyze version to have its own section?

I would also like to point out that at no point do you ever explain your reversions of the American Idol templates and the categories related to Lee DeWyze's version. Is there a reason you have twice deleted these templates and categories? Aspects (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the policy on consensus perfectly well, thank you very much. I was pointing out that consensus does not exist either way, so I apologize if that was not clear enough. It is late at night and I have been working for a good 12 hours, so I may be missing some points in my explanations at this moment (though I will note that by deeming your own arguments to be of better quality than those by myself and Deliriousandlost, there is an inherant bias in your conclusion that there is an established consensus). I have already explained numerous times what I believe the threshold to be for a full subsection to be included. Success is not enough; it needs information to go along with that success. Right now that information is non-existant. I thoroughly explained what is needed in my opinion a few days ago, at the same time that I offered to collaborate with you on a sandbox version so that it could reach that threshold. I've listed what I believe the point of acceptability to be numerous times over the last few days. I suggest you take another look. I am afraid that I simply don't see why you are shunning or otherwise ignoring my prior offer to work in collaboration with you in an area where it will not degrade the quality of the current article so that a subsection can be implemented, and why you are instead choosing to proceed with reinstating the subsection and infobox when you know full well that no consensus has been reached.

As for why I removed the templates and categories, I thought it obvious enough that no rationale was needed. If there is no information on the cover in the article than there is no reason for them to be included. Yes, I added in two sentences into "Reception and legacy", but that is hardly enough to warrant all those templates and categories. Only when a subsection actually exists would they be necessary or warranted. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You counted votes and then used those numbers to justify there was no consensus, which is against what Wikipedia:Consensus states. I feel there is a consensus since everyone else but you has stated that the version should pass WP:NSONGS and it now does.

Your argument is there is not enough information, but by never saying how much information would be needed, we can never know at what point you would feel a section is acceptable. It would make more sense to tag the section has needing improvement, so other editors could expand and improve the section than it would be to reduce it to the sentences since the section already had numerous reliable sources.

The American Idol templates are navigational templates that link the article and they should be listed here. The categories should be also be listed as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Categories, since this is a notable cover version of the song. So even if there is not a section these should be added back to the article. Aspects (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I already explained why that response regarding Consensus was vague so I'm not going to bother dredging up old territory. Just move on. We all forget or pass over things when we are tired. Everybody except me? Not quite; as I already said and as you can see by her own words, Deliriousandlost does not believe it passes NSONGS, and AlbertusMagnus is currently half and half judging by the last comment they left (yes it charted, but no there is not enough information). Notability is about more than one chart position (NSONGS states that charting songs are probably notable, not that they are definitively; even NSONGS states that enough verifiable information is needed. And right now there isn't enough). That is not a consensus. I said exactly how much information is needed; not in volume perhaps, but in terms of different aspects. Perhaps if you read my remarks a little more closely with the helpfully provided link in my last reply, you would see what I said is needed. When all those are addressed, it will be enough. I'm really starting to wonder what the point of continuing this debate is when you are continuously skipping over my points and recommendations. And I note that you're still completely ignoring my offer of collaboration so that we can actually build something that is worth adding. Considering how eager you are for the cover to have it's own section, I really can't see why you are continuing to ignore this when I am offering you the help in getting it instated. Why do you keep ignoring my offer of collaboration? Add the templates and categories back if you wish it; that guideline clarifies the rationale for their inclusion. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspects, if you are counting me as in favour of the section BECAUSE of charting then you got me backwards. Charting is merely one part of developing a comprehensive section for the cover. When the cover meets WP:NSONG you should be able to have enough additional content to warrant a dedicated section. For this situation i would suggest when the substance of the section is equal to or longer than the corresponding infobox then it would be appropriate to have a section. This would exclude block quotes and charting tables. To do otherwise would be to lower the quality of the article as a whole, which should not be acceptable to anyone.

Who cares if the consensus is counted or argument-based. Either way there is no obvious support for a section based on what is proposed to be in the section. Those so inclined to have a section should produce content for it. I admit i am not a fan of American Idol. Since i last posted here i gave in and downloaded the episode. I watched the performance on Access Hollywood's website. I was thoroughly unimpressed by what i heard. I'm one person. Clearly other people, even Simon, liked it. Write a sandbox page as a proposal that we may consider it. It is likely not going to be as comprehensive as the U2 section but that would be a great model on which to base a section on Lee's cover. Right now we are mostly going on what has been put into the now redirected article and that i most certainly say no to as a section.

Right now i might call this the most notable butchering of the lyric of a famous song that noone has picked up on.

You thought you found a friend to take out of these place

Someone you could lend in return for grace

Surely there is something more that can be said of the cover than this. Too bad that performance from NBC's Today show is all over the internet now because that is the most brutal of failures. The lyric is supposed to be "Someone you could lend a hand in return for grace". delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 10:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it really should not matter, but I feel the need to point out that I have been a big U2 fan since I first heard of them (1983) and that I'm not at all a fan of Lee DeWyze or of American Idol. I mention this because often people infer allegiances to "sides" from the content of their views in discussions such as these, and in this case to do so would be entirely wrong. Now, here's my 2 cents on the matter at hand.

(1) I don't buy the argument that a section of an article must meet the standards of being an independent article before it can be included as a section. In fact, often when people start new articles that do not meet the standard required for being an independent article the solution is to merge the information there into an existing article as a section of it. The link Deliriousandlost provided to WP:NSONG even says that this is what should be done when independent notability fails. Furthermore, if you surf at random other Wikipedia articles about just about any subject you could think of you will find tons of sections of articles that could not stand as articles in their own right. One might even say that the very reason that something is a section of a larger article rather than an independent article is typically because it cannot survive on its own. So I think some are proposing too high a standard for when a section on Lee DeWyze's cover should become a section.

(2) One thing that seems lost in this discussion is that the "Beautiful Day" article is not an article about U2. It is an article about the song. So all of the information about the writing of the song is just as legitimately information about the Lee DeWyze recording of the song as it is about the U2 recording or any other recording. If there was to be a separate article just about DeWyze's recording of the song there would be just as legitimate a reason to have a section with the several paragraphs about the writing of the song there as there would be in an article that was dedicated to just the U2 recording. (Imagine for a moment that the song was written by, just to pick a random example, Elvis Costello instead of by U2 but never recorded by him. It would still be legitimate to have all of the information about how the song was written even if none of it refers to a performing artist. The article is about the song after all, not the artists who record it.)

(3) Even if one still wants more to meet the standards required for a full stand-alone article about Lee DeWyze's recording of the song, there is a whole section in the current article called "Live performances". It would be easy to fill out as full a section for DeWyze, citing the fact that he performed it on the final Idol show, his performance of a different arrangement on the Regis And Kelly talk show and other live performances he has made of it So with a section about the writing of the song, a section about live performances of it, and a section about chart success, it would seem there might be enough to warrant an article just based on DeWyze's recording of it. But it would still be better as a section here because, after all, this article is about the song, not about U2.

(4) About the point about chart success, the DeWyze recording has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 almost as high as the U2 version did, and it has charted at #12 on the Billboard "Digital Songs" chart [1]. Surely that is notable chart success for the song and thus merits a mention somewhere in the article about the song.

(5) Finally, I worry that there is a different kind of WP:OWN issue going on here. I don't think any editors are acting like they personally (or collectively) "own" the article, but it does seem to me that there is an attitude that U2 "owns" the article because it is about a song they wrote and recorded first and so anything about any cover versions is an unwelcome intrusion. A cover is either too minor to include, and so should not be here, or it is significant enough to include in Wikipedia, but then only if it can be farmed off as a separate article. But that seems quite wrong. The article is (and now I sound like a broken record for sure) about the song. So the fact that U2 wrote it is important to include in the article. The fact that U2 recorded it and played it live and had chart success is important to include in the article. But the fact that Lee DeWyze has now recorded, notably played live, and had notable chart success with it means that this is important to include as well. Without it an article about the song is incomplete.

I love the U2 recording of this song and hate the DeWyze butchery of it, but wishing it did not exist is not a good reason to exclude it from mention in an encyclopedia. If it were, I'd actually start by erasing from all memory Frank Sinatra's bizarre butchery of Mrs. Robinson. But that's another issue altogether. As for this issue, I think there is more than enough notability and information available about DeWyze's recording to include a section in this article. 99.192.82.65 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Having seen some of the incarnations of the article on Lee DeWyze's cover that popped up when he won AI i found it generally lacked substance. It was pretty much an infobox and a couple of sentences saying he was to/had released a cover of BD as the AI winner. Merging a barely referenced stub into a B-class article is not too pretty. To put in the section as it appeared when it was an article would mean the downgrading of the Beautiful Day article as a whole. "There is a lot of information lacking in the current "Beautiful Day" cover that needs to be addressed in depth before I would consider it as enough for a subsection: Who selected the song as a possibility? Why did Lee DeWyze choose it over the other possible songs? What influenced his decision? What was his opinion of the original song, and did that play a role in his selection? What was the reaction when people found out his choice, and how did they feel after the performance? Who came up with the arrangement? Why did they elect to use violins instead of more traditional rock instruments? Who sang the backing vocals?" Melicans 30 May 2010 If someone who is a fan of Lee's version can address any of that then there should be sufficient for a section. The objective is to avoid having a section with an infobox and a tiny bit of prose that fills only a couple of lines. Given Lee's variations, in particular the acoustic arrangement and altered & edited lyric, the writing of his version would be his own. If someone can reference it that would be content for his section.

As to "wishing it did not exist is not a good reason to exclude it from mention in an encyclopedia" that is rather presumptuous. I joined this discussion having never heard of Lee DeWyze let alone his cover because the article is in my watchlist. Having heard it i do wish it did not exist. He does himself and the song no justice by performing it. Still, i have never been in favour of excluding it because i can't stand it. All anyone wants is content to go with an infobox. By some i have a low standard at saying the section on MJB's cover of One could be used to construct a section for this cover.

If you notice, so much has been written about what should go in to justify a section and why a section should be included. Noöne has actually written a section that contains any of the suggestions and addresses any of the concerns raised here. This is a clash of standards between two projects. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

99.192.82.65, nobody is arguing that the information shouldn't be merged. In fact I already did merge it a few days ago, as demonstrated through a link above in response to Tinlinkin. The issue is that there is not enough information on the cover for a subsection to exist. Should the information be included? Absolutely, and it already is. But the amount of information, a paltry four or five sentences, is nowhere near enough to warrant an individual section in the article. I could write as much on the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra cover; which funnily enough, nobody has argued should be included as its own section. I repeat again, since people seem to be having an incredible amount of trouble reading or understanding my remarks:

The issue has nothing to do with whether the cover should be mentioned. It has everything to do with the amount of information about the cover, and whether a few short sentences is enough information for it to be in it's own subsection. I don't think that the amount of information is enough for a subsection to exist, and neither does Deliriousandlost. A mention in the prose, absolutely. That inclusion already exists. But those very few and very short sentences are simply not enough for a subsection to be justified. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Certification

RIAA certification Gold is wrong !!!!!!!!!

How can some claim that the song has reached Gold in the USA for shipped 500,000 copies? This is wrong.

In the databank of RIAA i cannot find that the song ever had sold 500,000 copies

It was maybe certified for Gold digital

By at the beginning of the 2000s Gold was certified for 150,000 singles

Please change that

I find the following details in the RIAA database:

U2 BEAUTIFUL DAY NOVEMBER 12, 2002 MAY 19, 2005 INTERSCOPE DIGITAL GOLD SINGLE GROUP Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You idiot did you see DIGITAL ??? do you know what this does mean ? I had explained it to you several times. The single was not certified Gold for 500,000 copies but for 100,000 copies as digital sales certifications at that time (2005) were 100,000 copies and not 500,000 copies

as of 2009 RIAA changed the rule

That means it was sold maybe under 100,000 copies to 499,0000 copies- And we talk about SHIPMENTS not sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.57.236 (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Pro-tip: you will never make a meaningful impact on anyone in the Wikipedia community with that kind of piss-poor attitude. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

in my eyes its totally ignorance not to change it. It was not certified Gold for 500,000 shipped copies but more ilkely for 100,000 sold digital copies

please remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.0.44.133 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RIAA Certification for 500,000 shipped copies of the single not right. Digital sales much lower before 2009

I have asked Billboard and RIAA

the 500,000 copies certification of the single is not right !. At that time when Digital was certified GOLD the number of download was 150,000 copies.

Therefore i have removed this. I had several discussions here but nothing happened today and i was completely ignored. I know it s about peanuts to talk about numbers. The album has sold at least 4,200,000 copies as of 2016 but the single was sold maybe 150,000 copies. Explaianetion : Sales at that time of Singles were low — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.133 (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=U2&ti=BEAUTIFUL+DAY

why you ignorants don't change this ? it was certified GOLD in 2005. At that time sales for DIGITAL GOLD was not 500,000 but 100,000 89.204.154.150 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you would read the edit history/comments, you would see that you can manually add a sales amount to the table, but you should not be removing a valid certification just because of a sales discrepancy. Also, why don't you practice some maturity with your comments? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beautiful Day. 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/20110606234052/http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=189672 to http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=189672
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx?title=Beautiful%20Day&winner=&year=2000&genreID=0&hp=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228140631/http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html?p=9 to http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html?p=9

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

links to A-ha

can someone tell me why the fact that the bridge in this song is taken from the A-ha somg "the sun always shines on rv" is sensored on this page? 211.26.216.189 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources that back up what you insist on adding? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)