Talk:Get Back

Rewrite

I've made considerable edits and re-written much of the article. I may include some more audio samples to back up my statements if people feel it would be of benefit. simonthebold 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Get Back Sessions

I'm currently disambiguating links for "Let It Be", and I am finding truck loads of links for 'Get Back sessions' which point here. I wonder if we could add the phrase "Get Back sessions" to the disambiguation line just to make it crystal clear that the user has come to the wrong place, or move this article to Get Back (song) and have a dab page? --kingboyk 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm all for re-instating the 'Get Back sessions' page as their is considerable information on this period that could (and should IMHO) be included in addition to a Let It Be (album) page. simonthebold 10:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I just found a bad link for the Get Back sessions to the song (in the article Glyn Johns), so I've created a Get Back sessions redirect. --kingboyk 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should identify the vocalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.23.64 (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture Sleeve

The image used to illustrate the picture sleeve was taken in August 1969 at their last ever photo shoot. As this image postdates the single release should it be used? Or should we revert back to the previous Apple 7" vinyl image. Comments please.

simonthebold 10:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

Why is this at "Get Back (song)" when there's no ambiguity about the title "Get Back"? It could simply be at "Get Back". The Disco King 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also,Loretta Martin was the name of Dick Clark's second wife,who was his wife when Get Back was written. Can't be a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"No Pakistanis"

Just from a recording of the bootleg with the "No Pakistanis" verse, it sounds more like a parody of a song that was already written. The version I'm hearing is available here: [1]. During the second verse (the first with music behind it), you can hear Paul creeping in with the actual second verse before switching back to making up the words as he went along (starting with "Mohegan"). That's the way I would interpret it, without a timeline or anything, anyway. It just sounds like a jam. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, where did you get that from? Brilliant. andreasegde 18:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Beatles were just messing around, ad libbing, possibly. The typical inflection of spoken syllables in the word "Pakistani" worked well with the existing melody and rhythm, which the Beatles may have found amusing. There's also another Pakistani version, not covered in the article. I've got the source bootleg someplace, what I can remember is: "...don't need no Pakistanis, taking all the people's jobs. / Get back, etc." I'll go digging for it, if that's held to be of historical value. Leave a msg on my talk page. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Anomalies and quirks" section

Are we aware that the "Anomalies and quirks" section is pretty much lifted straight off of the What Goes On? page for Get Back? It's not credited in the References and I don't think we have permission for them.... —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Beatles Rooftop Performance"

The phrase "Beatles Rooftop Performance" had an article link. That link went to a "History of the Beatles" page that was a general history of the band, and contained no specific info about the Concert on the Roof. While I think a Wikipedia article on the rooftop concert would be a good idea, I removed that link, since there doesn't appear to be any such article at this time. Vidor 11:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles with Billy Preston

The article states that "Get Back" was the only Beatles' single to ever credit another artist which is a statement I've heard before elsewhere. But I was wondering, what about the work they did early on with Tony Sheridan? Those credit another artist. Or are they just considered "Tony Sheridan singles" and therefore not Beatles' singles or is it because the band was billed as "The Beat Brothers" (although I think some of that stuff was re-released as being by The Beatles after they became big)?--Lairor 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's actually both. They were Tony Sheridan releases, credited to "Tony Sheridan with The Beat Brothers". They were not Beatles releases and were never released as such (at least not officially, as far as I know), even if they were later relabeled to be "with The Beatles". Get Back was specifically a Beatles releases, specifically credited as "with Billy Preston", and the only Beatles release to do so. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

links to copyvio

I have again removed external links from this article to material in violation of copyright, per #5 under the "Links to be used occasionally" section at Wikipedia:External links. Performances and transcriptions of lyrics are protected by copyright. Unless the owner of the copyright has placed the material on the web themselves, or approved its publication on some unofficial website, it should not be linked from Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In general terms I wholeheartedly agree with you. However another editor has expressed concern that in the process you're wiping out a reference to the controversial "no Pakistani" lyrics. May I ask also why you've only targetted Beatles articles? There are far worse offenders out there, including I would imagine some articles which quote lyrics verbatim. --kingboyk 09:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kingboy. If you review my edit history, you can confirm that I've reverted a number of different kinds of copyvio links from many different kinds of articles, including articles which have had complete lyrics inlined. If this article is discussing controversial lyrics, I don't think it's a problem for the article to quote a couplet or verse from the song directly, inline, if it's anaylzing the content of that couplet. That falls under fair use. If the lyrics are truly controverisal, I don't think it would be hard to find other text (eg, reviews, critical or musicological anaylsis) that also contains the lyrics in question, at least partially. -- Mikeblas 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Checking the article, I find that footnote [1] references the lyrics at another site, but in the context of discussing the controversial phrases in the song. That's also a link to copyvio, and should probably go, as there's no context at the site for replicating the lyrics that would let fair use attach. The reference seems rather weak, anyway, since there's literally no context--there's nothing but lyrics on the page--and that means it has no way of proving itself credible. -- Mikeblas 18:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike. I think you are taking rather a hard line fundamentalist view of the guidelines (not rules) with the net effect of diminishing the article. The links to the No Pakistanis and Commonwealth Song transcriptions add some important background to the article and help the readers make up their own minds to the arguments presented. Likewise the link to the search engine instead of direct to the lyrics gives the reader a chance to easily find the lyrics without so-called copyright violation. This type of petty legalistic nit-picking is I feel more of a comment on the attitudes of some editors than a serious affront to empoverished songwriters intellectual property. I agree wikipedia should not carry the full lyrics as this leaves the project vulnerable; however it is the defacto position that the lyrics are published and available in the public domain. It should not be the job of wikipedia editors to set some supergold standard. simonthebold 11:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

With that said, I have to agree. It's not our responsibility to worry about whether other websites are violating copyright. If it's useful to the article, or of interest to the reader, we should link to it. We worry about our own content and the other webmasters will worry about theirs. It's not as if any copyright lawyer or similar is going to come complain to Wikipedia about the content of someone else's website. A link to another website does not induce copyright infringement. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might. It's easy to see how Wikipedia's popularity, high search-engine rankings, and replication make it a great tool for driving traffic to a site. Editors often post press-release-like articles here to try to draw attention to their sites or products, leveraging WP's status. As such, I don't think it would be too hard to make a case for contributory infringement or vicarious infringement. (Man, these responses are all a jumble. Isn't there a better way to handle conversations about articles?) -- Mikeblas 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Available in the public domain" makes no sense. Lyrics to songs by The Beatles and video and audio footage of their performances are not in the public domain; they're owned by someone and protected by copyright. Sure, it's a fact that people ignore the rights of intellectual property holders and copy things anyway. But that doesn't make it legal to carry out such an action.

Someone interested in finding the material can, if they'd like, use the search engine of their choice. Placing an external link in an article targeted at a search engine result page doesn't make much sense, since the page is highly dynamic and doesn't do anything to meet the guidelines we have for placing external links.

As I suggested above, there are ways to write the article that don't violate anyone's rights. Why not pursue them? -- Mikeblas 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, say we have an article about a particular full-length Hollywood movie. The article offers a critical review of the movie, as well as a literary analysis of the characters and their actions in the plotline. Should we provide a link to a site that hosts a downloadable copy of the movie so the "readers make up their own minds to the arguments presented"? Certianly, you agree that's an absurd idea. If someone wants to make up their own mind about the movie, or the lyrics in the Beatles songs, they should obtain a licensed copy of the material by a legal means. -- Mikeblas 23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between posting a link to a full-length video of a movie and a link to the lyrics of a song. The full-length video of a movie represents the complete work that is covered by copyright in multiple different ways. The lyrics of a song only represent the linguistic portion of a song, which by nature is free (libre, but not necessarily gratis) to be covered by other artists. There's an even bigger difference between a link to the lyrics of the final, copyrighted and released song and the lyrics to a spur-of-the-moment jam made up on the spot and not officially copyrighted or released. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no difference germaine to this discussion; they're both covered by copyright. More importantly, being at liberty to cover the song (which doesn't include redistributing a copy of the covered song, by any means!) isn't the same as being at liberty to reproduce and redistribute the lyrics. Anyway, I think we're drifing astray of the topic. If you still disagree with the removal of the links to the lyrics sites, you should probably request a third party review of the issue. -- Mikeblas 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles Get Back.jpg

Image:Beatles Get Back.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 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Added/updated FU rationale. — John Cardinal 03:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lennon's speculation that it was about Ono

Shouldn't there be something in the article about how John Lennon thought that "get back to where you once belonged" was directed at Yoko? There's information in the interview in All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono by John Lennon, David Sheff, Yōko Ono (ISBN 0312254644), around page 202. --Evil1987 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate Macmillan

Who was Candidate Macmillan in the earlier version of the Pakistanis verse? Harold Macmillan - he wrote the winds of change speech? his son Maurice Macmillan? any thoughts?

Why was it changed to candidate for Labour?simonthebold 13:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

John on lead guitar?

On Beatles anthology episode 8, in the studio, it appears that George is playing the solo. The Person Who Is Strange 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Getback roof.jpg

Image:Getback roof.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I need some wheels (Help me!)

Just to say, when the song is played backwards, it appears that the "Get Back, Get Back, Get Back to where you once belonged" backwards is "Oh, I need some wheels. Help me! Help me! Help me!". This is funny, I think something of this should be added.--200.41.3.107 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

it can be added if a reliable source can be found for it. --Rodhullandemu 21:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Geh Raus

I think that the german version of this song should be included in this article. --neolandes (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd figure--204.96.148.75 (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Single Release

It Wasn't a Single from Let it Be! it was released during that period, but it was re-recorded for the album--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It was remixed for the album, not re-recorded. The only new composition the Beatles recorded as a group in 1970 (but without John Lennon who had privately quit the group in September 1969) was I Me Mine.

But yes, there was a time where I falsely believed that The Beatles recorded Get Back and Don't Let Me Down in 1969 and then went back and recorded the other Let It Be songs in 1970. I was surprised when I learned that all but one song from Let It Be was recorded before all the songs recorded for Abbey Road. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate infoboxes for single and album track

To avoid misleading interpretations because the single and album versions of this song are different, John Cardinal and myself came up with the solution of two separate infoboxes, one for the single and the other for the album track. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. 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: not moved, no consensus to move the article ~~ GB fan ~~ 10:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Get Back → Get Back (The Beatles song) — Because there are some other artist who sings the same song also like *Demi Lovato, Ludacris, and Zebrahead. I am not forcing it. I am just recommending it. If you do not agree, just tell me. Thank you ~~yeah~~ 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't : The beatles song seems to be the most likely term to being looked for eg Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic?.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

"Sweet Loretta Fart" or "Sweet Loretta Vat"?

A quick google shows over 400 hits for "Fart", and three for "Vat", one being a version of this article. I prefer to trust the senses of those who have studied the lyrics over the years. If anyone has a reliable source for "Vat" to outweigh all the others, please cite it. Rodhullandemu 04:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Main Writer

I think it's clearer if the main writer was mentioned in the first paragraph. Official writer is Lennon-McCartney, but like this is written only by McCartney, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.227.94 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think John Lennon may have had some input, but the concept was definetely Paul McCartney's. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Get Back Single "Cover" Shown in This Article

The so-called single sleeve cover shown in this article is false. This was never the official sleeve cover because it physically cannot be the sleeve: the photo shown is from a Beatles photo session from august 22, 1969 - the Tittenshurst photo session done right after recording for Abbey Road was completed (numerous sources confirm this) - months after the Get Back/Don't Let Me Down single was released. Could someone upload a new pic file with actual sleeve or perhaps the photo of the actual A side of the Apple Records single with the Get Back title shown. This photo can be found on numerous web sites. Thank you, dhfro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhfrto (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I added to the article that there was no picture sleeve issued by Apple or Capitol. Parlophone issued a 20th anniversary picture disc with the same photo. Could the picture be a reissue sleeve or an advertisement? GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hard rock?

This song isn't really heavy enough to be classified as hard rock. Compare it with songs like "Helter Skelter", "Smoke on the Water", "Immigrant Song", "Born to be Wild" and other songs that have more than just a prominent guitar. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

These genre classifications on Wiki have always been problematic. One person's "heavy" is another's "pop". As with the rest of Wiki, all we can go in is reliable sources.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I put it this way. One person's "heavy metal" is another's "hard rock". One's "hard rock" is another's "blues rock". One's "rock" is another's "pop". One's "hard rock" is another's "power pop". C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Naked Version vs. Single

I like the naked version of the song, as it doesn't have an echo effect so it sounds more cleaned up, more crisp. Unfortunately I still prefer the single version because the naked version fades out before the coda which they recorded one day after recording the master take. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I once tried editing the naked and single versions together, but I was unable to do so successfully. Could the naked version be ever so slightly faster than the single because even without the codas, the vocals weren't quite in the same spot if played at the same time. Could that be so? C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of Get Back

LOL! I always thought the "Get Back to where you once belong" lyric was a reference to the fact that The Beatles were playing more basic rock songs like in their early years. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Al Green version

The page should mention the cover version of the song by Al Green on his album Green is Blues which was released only four days after the single of Get Back came out. Thus long before Get Back appeared on a Beatles album it appeared on an Al Green album. Jasonpfinch (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested moves (2)

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Clear consensus that the Beatles song meets the usage criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC and no consensus about the long-term significance criterion (leaning towards the Beatles song). Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• Get Back → Get Back (Beatles song)
• Get Back (disambiguation) → Get Back

– Reopening the move because I think the old track no longer deserves to be a primary topic in the current times. If you think this still deserves to be a primary topic, feel free to comment below. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 03:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: The original destination for this proposed move was "Get Back (The Beatles song)"; this was changed to "Get Back (Beatles song)" as what is said right here. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 07:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was never really designed for media products which are unrecognizable without artist name, and this doesn't pass WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anyway. In ictu oculi (talk)
• Support per nom and IIO -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support and get it back to where it once belonged. Chortle. This will make it easier to spot incorrect incoming links too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looking at the pageview stats shows that the Beatles song is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So far this month, the Beatles song has had 4,099 views. The other articles on the disambiguation page total to 2,207. ((film) + (TV series) + (Demi Lovato song) + (Ludacris song) + (Zebrahead song) + {ASAP).) No individual article had more than 678 views (Demi Lovato). So the Beatles song is by far the likeliest individual topic sought, and nearly twice as likely as all the other WP targets combined to be sought. And of all the candidates, the Beatles song would have to be considered the one with the greatest enduring notability as well, so it meets both criteria of wp:primarytopic rather easily. Dohn joe (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, why would (Beatles song) make it more difficult to find? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, adding (whatever) to every single title is an option. "Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte (capital of Sri Lanka)" or "Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (former president of France)" both add info that aren't found in the bare title. But that's not WP policy. When there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we don't add extra bits to the title. If you disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that's your prerogative. Take it up at the talkpage. Or make an argument why it doesn't apply here. I've tried to provide stats that back up my argument. Hopefully others will agree, but that's what discussion is for. Dohn joe (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I did make an argument, above "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was never really designed for media products which are unrecognizable without artist name, and this doesn't pass WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anyway". Valéry Giscard d'Estaing isn't a media product which is unrecognizable without artist name, it's evidently a human name, and a very distinctive one, we're talking about phrases with no context like "Get Back" "Get Rhythm" "Get Together". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind showing us the phrase in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that excludes "media products which are unrecognizable without artist name", or the discussion where that was decided? Otherwise, it seems like a rather idiosyncratic interpretation. And I would imagine that more people would know what "Get Back" referred to than "Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte" or "Valéry Giscard d'Estaing" - and in fact, more people have visited the Beatles song article than either of those two articles this month. Dohn joe (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a view. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn Joe. The nominator's comments also have more than a hint of WP:RECENTISM to them. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support It is very difficult for any song to state a claim of PRIMARYTOPIC over a simple English language phrase. Moreover, so long as the Beatles' song is at the base title, pageviews for it will include searchers who find it erroroneously when seeking any other usage of that phrase; ergo, pageviews are not of great utility in determining PRIMARYTOPIC status in this circumstance. Absent other evidence of longstanding cultural or academic significance, moving the disambiguation page to the base title would seem to maximize the ease of reader navigation. Xoloz (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stats and the literature support the Beatles' song as primary topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose On basis of the stats Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to Get Back (Beatles song) in line with present titling of Beatle songs. There is a reason that cultural titles eschew primarytopic and rely on WP:SONGDAB. Takes a little time but when one appreciates why the two guidelines are so different...The policy document, WP:AT says, Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles, which does include WP:NCM of which WP:SONGDAB applies and as there are 3 other songs with articles called "Get Back"... --Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Added from "The policy document...--Richhoncho (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  The two guidelines actually dovetail perfectly. First, you decide if there's a primarytopic at all. If there is, great, go with it. If not, then go to wp:songdab for advice on how to disambiguate. As that guideline says itself, it only applies "where necessary". It's not necessary if there's a primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Dohn joe. As neither guideline mentions the other I think that's something you just made up. "Where necessary" doesn't appear in WP:SONGDAB. I think you mean "When necessary" which refers to when there are two songs with the same name. As in this RM. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  No, WP:SONGDAB actually specifically references WP:DISAMBIGUATION. (And if you delve into the page history, yes, I added the most recent reference. But that was just a restoration of a portion of an edit by User:In ictu oculi.) WP:SONGDAB is clearly subordinate to WP:DAB. "When necessary" means "When it is necessary to disambiguate". That's why the first few examples are "(band)", "(album)" or "(song)" - those are meant to be used when there's only one band, album, or song, but other uses of the title. Multiple songs at one title don't come in until the second paragraph. Dohn joe (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment or move this to Get Back (Beatles song) as what is said by Jaydiem right here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles#Closure. Please refer to the similar request right here: Talk:Yesterday#Move_request_.5BJune_2014.5D j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 04:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Satisfies both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC without question. Red Slash 06:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe, Calidum, Binksternet, Red Slash and my comment on Ring My Bell why that title is perfectly in line with WP:AT and is symmetrically applicable to Get Back. (except the hit ratio is not as large for Get Back). ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Looks to be an easy primary topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal: Move the "Get Back" article to "Get Back (Beatles song)", but leave a redirect from "Get Back" to "Get Back (Beatles song)" rather than to a disambiguation page. I do believe the song is the primary topic for the term "Get Back", but I am also sympathetic to arguments in favor of the move that are unrelated to the primary-topic issue, such as making it easier to spot incorrect incoming links (Lugnuts) and that even a primary topic should be disambiguated when its name is also a common English-language word or phrase (In ictu oculi and Xoloz). This alternative solution appears to satisfy the concerns of both sides. — Jaydiem (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  Appreciate the attempt, but no. The incorrect incoming links argument is equally valid for all primarytopics, so why not just disambiguate every article that shares a title? And as for the latter, it's already part of the analysis. And it wouldn't do any good anyhow, if we continue to redirect the base name here. Someone looking for the common phrase "get back" will still wind up here. Especially since there is no article (and likely never will be) on the common phrase, we're not helping anyone, and only making the title here longer than it needs to be. Dohn joe (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure Jaydiem, that's very helpful, because it solves the main problem, of an unrecognizable title. I believe that there's consensus above for a full restore of disambiguation, but if that isn't possible then that would achieve the main objective. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the obvious primary topic, as shown by Dohn joe.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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