Talk:On a Night Like This

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Information[edit]

Two key pieces of information are missing from this article:

1. How could it be that the writers of this song were able to "give" it to three different artists?

2. Wasn't the recording by Kylie Minogue a controversial issue? Didn't the Anna Vissi camp dispute Minogue's rights to the song? 220.233.224.46 13:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was given to 3 different artists because the songs was written by Steve Torch, Graham Stack, Mark Taylor and Brian Rawling and produced by Graham Stack and Mark Taylor. The rights to the song were owned by them. I am not sure how they got it to Pandora, but I know that Anna Vissi got it when Sony called in big name producers and composers for her English album. They were trying to make Anna Vissi the next big thing. They produced the whole album and wrote alot of songs. It was released in alot of countries, (even Australia) but didnt make a big impact. After that I guess the producers gave the song to Kylie too. I am not sure if it was disputed or not, but I remember an article by a European author that had talked to Minogue over the summer before the release and singing. She had raved about this new song, and i think played it to him, and he said he had heard it before by singer Anna Vissi. At that point Minogue was very disappointed. I dont know what happened after that. Ultimately Minogue won the fame to the song since she was a bigger artist (known to more people) and sang it at the Olympics. Greekboy 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution?[edit]

I have read elsewhere that it is about prostitution. Seeing as the lyrics don't even hint at that, I assume the claim is that Kylie's character in the video is a prostitute. However, I can't see any anything in the video to substantiate that claim. It could be interpreted that her character is an high-class escort, but there is nothing which really shows what / who her character is, other that she has a connection to rich people. Can anyone explain? F W Nietzsche (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it's a fantasy sequence and is deliberately vague. I agree—prostitution and escort service—nothing clear either way. Remember, they want people to talk about it (and they have succeeded) --Greenmaven (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections[edit]

There are a lot of grammar mistakes in this article, and it is unclear throughout as to what country the chart informations relate to. Other sentences make no sense at all, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.92.67 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Censorship/Controversies[edit]

Wasn't the original video, in Australia at least contain Ms. Minogue's bare bottom when she walks by the glass door and as she enters the pool? I somehow remembered that the pant(ies) were CGIed on after some controversy... no online source or discussion regarding this topic was found. --Bob (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. It does seem like the developing trend shows a lack of consensus for enforcing WP:NCCAPS in the case of certain prepositions. Additionally, the current discussion does not make it clear that this is not the primary topic for the title. Dekimasuよ! 03:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a Night Like This → On a Night like This – Shall we fully enforce WP:NCCAPS and lowercase like? The title treats like as a preposition, not a verb or any other. Most sources capitalize it as Like; this shouldn't prevent this from lowercasing it. Let's compare this situation to I Like It Like That and Talk:Love You like a Love Song. (I'm unsure whether readers have fully read MOS:CT, which doesn't mention requested moves.) George Ho (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm just going to combine and copy and paste my remarks at the discussion referenced above. I put a TLDR down below if that's easier for y'all. The guidelines at the manual of style do not take precedence over common name, and if we are creating our own titles separate from what most reliable sourcing uses than we are doing something against common sense.
No one is doubting that there are other pages where limited consensus (and I mean limited, especially in that case where the admin closed against the !votes of the majority of participants) matched what you are proposing. But the Manual of Style, in addition to being a guideline, takes care to note that editor discretion can be used in interpretation. The main purpose of the manual of style in general is to provide a consistent and understandable writing style throughout the encyclopedia, not to push through changes that are not necessarily logical on a case by case basis. A case in which the official name and the vast majority of reliable sources use a specific title and a proposal suggests that we should either invent or conform to a slim minority of coverage is one of those cases in which editor discretion is wise.
I think issues like this come up when we try to do things like decide certain guidelines are totally irrelevant or apply a one-size-fits-all method to determining guideline applications. There are cases when following certain guidelines to the letter makes sense, such as with articles with stylized NaMeS LIKe THIs and no clear indication of an official name, where reliable sources like the New York Times will choose a more standard name for readability and style issues. There are other times where a book may have a name in all caps like BOB GOES TO THE STORE and where there is not enough clear reliable sourcing to indicate the correct official capitalization -- in that case turning to the manual of style guidelines is best. But to use specific cases like these and try to expand them to blanket rules without editor discretion that would lead to cases where we would go against every clear indication of both the official name and the name used by the majority of reliable sources would not be a positive attitude.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR - But basically, to sum it up, the current title is overwhelmingly preferred by the policy of using the most common name, and the manual of style specifically encourages editor discretion and discourages using invented names. The MOS is great for our writing style and when the official or common name might be unknown, but to argue that it should be used to take an official name with a specifically chosen title that is used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including books, newspapers, and websites, as well as is the generally common name is fairly absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then try to propose Nothing Broken but My Heart back to "Nothing Broken But My Heart" there. --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your goal is to simply base every discussion off what happens in others, feel free to notify those in those 3 other discussion of this one and we can see what happens.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Authorised artwork uses all sorts of styling, as if styling doesn't matter. There is no indication that capitalised Like has any significance. Titling policy doesn't mandate following source styling. By default, follow the MOS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we aren't basing this decision on authorized artwork (in fact I can't find any artwork). We are basing this on the fact that reliable and official sources all call this by a correct name, not a stylized version of an official one. Indeed, we have pretty much every indication that the current title is an official one not a stylized one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, you're pointing me to a case where the discussion was about how the common name potentially differed from the official title (and even further, you're talking about a move discussion where it seems you were the only participant). But I don't see how it relates here, given that both the common name and official name are in this case the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay. Let's put that example aside and go back on topic. How does capitalization indicate commonality? Words are the same, regardless of capitalization and/or de-capitalization. Is there something contradictory between policy WP:AT and guideline WP:NCCAPS? --George Ho (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're pointing out something unfortunate -- our title guidelines and policies are somewhat murky. But, what it comes down to can be gleaned from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which states that "an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility". If Billboard is using a style, and Rolling Stone or the New York Times or Spin or just the bulk of reliable sourcing in general largely use the official title, is it really common sense for us to be saying we shouldn't be following the sources here in order to somehow adhere to conventions and gain credibility? Wikipedia is a unique construct in that our work is so clearly tied and based off of reliable sourcing about the subject -- making us stand out and go against the grain here just doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding credibility, these sources, like Billboard, are not experts of capitalizations. Probably their editors have been too befuddled by liberal standards of English (or have had lack of sufficient English education). --George Ho (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also just the general notion (which certainly should not be the deciding factor in finding consensus) that On a Night like This as a title just looks weird compared to On a Night Like This. Perhaps this may give some indication as to why "like" and other 3 or more letter words are very often capitalized in composition titles but words like "a", "to", or "and" often aren't. Looking at the top of the actual pages for Nothing Broken but My Heart and Love You like a Love Song almost looks like there was some kind of mixup that lead to a sentence instead of a title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about A Boy Was Born? People said to capitalize was into Was under the guidelines. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for goodness sake. Just take a look at it. A simple search reveals that no-one else writes it like this but this is something that should be pretty clear without Google weighing in. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[And all along I was assuming you were talking about a Bob Dylan song. Rothorpe (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Um.... sometimes, stats can count people who do not read the whole article, including the lede. Probably it includes those wanting to read the Bob Dylan song and/or the country music song. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you, User:George Ho, but even if we subtract the Bob Dylan views from this page the results are still clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Especially the country song? --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it only gets around half the results of the Bob Dylan Song (which is already only getting around 5% of the Kylie song) so it still works.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Policy discussion in progress[edit]

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects this page, suggesting that the capitalization of "like" should be removed. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 15:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:On a Night Like This/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 20:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soon... Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • single off her → single for her
  • set comma after "seventh studio album"
  • latter two collaborators → remove "collaborators"
  • Musically, it is a → Musically, "On a Night Like This" is a
  • disco music, and is about having one-in-a-life time experiences during the night. → disco music. Its lyrical content delves on experiencing unique experiences during the night.
  • Some critics complimented → Some of them complimented
  • Commercially, it was a success → Commercially, it experienced success
  • Please spell "UK" out to United Kingdom
  • set a comma before "respectively"
  • Avery, with the plotline loosely inspired by the → Avery, with its plot being inspired by the
  • set comma after "1995 film"
  • Minogue has included it on majority → Minogue added it to the set list of the majority
  • set comma before "including her 2000"
  • most recently on her → most recently her
  • you have word repetition through "concert tour"; try to change the latter mention into "concert venue"
  • defining tracks, and has → defining tracks. "On a Night Like This" has
  • from her 2014 → for her 2014
  • set comma after "greatest hits album"
I have no problem with almost all of these. Does the fifth one have too much "experience"? Oh, by the way, I've jumped in on this GAR as CaliforniaDreamsFan appears busy. I'd defer to her preferences if any of these changes are contentious.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

  • CD1 and digital cover. → Cover artwork used to commercialize physical and digital releases of "On a Night Like This"
Other than "commercialise" (Aus Eng) this is okay.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release[edit]

  • Image > Swedish singer Pandora (pictured) was the first musician to record the single, which led to Minogue and Vissi re-recording it. → Swedish singer Pandora (pictured) initially recorded the single for her 1999 studio album, but its rejection resulted in Minogue and Vissi re-recording it.
  • set comma after "comeback single"
  • and led to her to release → and led to her releasing
  • production handled by the latter two collaborators → production being handled b the latter two
  • set comma before and after "No Regrets"
  • but the writers felt it didn't gain as much success as they had hoped. → but its composers reportedly believed the result to not gain as much success as they had hoped.
  • They gave the song → As a result, they handed the recording
  • suggested that Minogue record vocals over the backing track, which she did. → suggested Minogue to record her vocals over the backing track, which she did.
  • on the studio album → on her studio album
  • feature the same backing track, → feature the same instrumental (word rep.)
  • had a completely different composition → had a significantly different production
  • from Minogue's seventh studio album Light Years, → remove "seventh studio album" here
  • and distributed → and was distributed
  • The first CD single in → The first CD single released in
  • second CD single → second CD
  • included the original recording → included the original mix of "On a Night Like This" (word rep.)
  • The UK and Europe CD singles → The British and European physical editions (word rep.)
  • in France only → only in France
  • including the single → including "On a Night Like This"
  • EMI Music Taiwan → remove "Taiwan" here
  • were released in the UK → United Kingdom
  • cassette tape, distributed in the UK and Europe → cassette tape, and was distributed in Europe (UK is part of Europe!; in order to avoid repetitions)
  • Europe, which included → Europe. It included
  • what is a "flip-side"
  • The single artwork → The accompanying cover sleeve
  • the booklet included with → the booklet from
  • friend of Minogue's → friend of Minogue
  • image portrayed a somewhat → image was of
Done. I believe "flip-side" refers to the other side of a cassette tape. For some cassingles the flip-side was blank, for others it had the same tracks as the front/first side (as appears to be the case here). I just got rid of "flip-"; this seems to work unless CDF objects.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and lyrics[edit]

  • elements of disco music → elements of disco music in its instrumentation
  • radio pod cast → radio station
  • and was mixed → and it was mixed
  • staff member at → staff member of
  • said that it features instrumentation of string → commented the recording's instrumentation consists of string
  • synthesizers, all handled by → synthesizers handled by
  • pre-chorus and chorus section features backing vocals. → pre-chorus and chorus sections featured background vocals
  • According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Universal Music Publishing → According to the sheet music published by Universal Music
  • between B♭3 and C5 → from...to...
  • whilst the song → whilst the recording
  • Lyrically, the song → Lyrically, "On a Night Like This"
  • focuses on someone enjoying a one-in-a-life time experience at night time, whilst referencing factors of a relationship and love → focuses on a person enjoying unique experiences on night time, but also approaches themes of relationships and love.
  • he labelled the composition as a → the composition is a
  • and English → , and to the works of English
  • However, Philip Matusavage from → Philip Matusavage, writing for...,
Used "synthesisers", otherwise done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

  • that it was one of her songs from her greatest hits compilation album Ultimate Kylie (2004) → that the recording was one of the singer's songs from ultimate Kylie
  • referred it → referred it to
  • favoured it → favored "On a Night Like This" (word rep.)
  • Why isn't Digital Spy linked?
  • and selected it as a highlight → and pointed it our as a highlight (word rep.)
  • When comparing the it to → When likening the recording to
  • Bextor, A reviewer → Bextor, a reviewer
  • United States, commending → United States, commenting,
  • However, the song was not void to criticism, including a review by Matt James from PopMatters, who reviewed Minogue's greatest hits album The Best of Kylie Minogue (2012). He described the song as a "bedroom-eyed nightclubber", but did say it was "still hot enough to melt large glaciers." → In a review of Minogue's greatest hits album Kylie Minogue (2012) by PopMatters' Matt james, he described "On a Night Like This" as a "bedroom-eyed nightclubber", further adding it was "still..."
  • Another editor from NME was Stevie Chick, whom → An editor from NME, Stevie Chick, (remove "whom")
Used "favoured" (Aus Eng), otherwise done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance[edit]

  • single was a success in Australia → single experienced success in Australia
  • It fell to number three → However, "On a Night Like This" fell to number three
  • number-one debuting single → a single debuting atop the chart
  • I now see this section includes several word repetitions and stuff like that, and I'd prefer editing it myself before passing as it's uncomfortable to list like 20 issues here.
Done the first 3. You're welcome to do those repetitions.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music video[edit]

  • The accompanying music video → An accompanying music video
  • You repeat "music video" two times consecutively
  • You repeat "loosely based" two times consecutively
  • You repeat "Minogue" several times consecutively
  • As always, I prefer editing the synopsis myself before passing this to GA
  • the self-titled → remove; overfluous
I've done some of these; your welcome to do more.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion[edit]

  • All is good besides some word repetitions with "performed, performed...", "Minogue, Minogue..." and "It, it..."
  • There are still minor issues on wording with this section, but it's so minimal that I'm going to fix that by myself before passing.
Go for it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formats and track listings[edit]

  • flawless

Personnel[edit]

  • Remove "the CD" from "the CD liner notes"
OK.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

  • flawless

Certifications and sales[edit]

  • set ref after the units sold (UK)
  • add a {{N/A|None}} in place for the empty space at Certification (UK)
Done; also added a ^ to Aus cert shipment number.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

  • song page on Kylie's official web site. → page for the song on Minogue's official website
OK.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome[edit]

  • I've put this  On hold for 7 days in order to allow edits to this article. Best regards and good luck, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all the issues you've raised and appreciate you volunteering to catch some of those repetitious phrases.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaidar cuebiyar: Gladly passing! Congrats, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2016 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on On a Night Like This. 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: 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) 00:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:On_a_Night_Like_This&oldid=1206711793"