Talk:Money (That's What I Want)

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

Untitled[edit]

Infoboxes for The Kingsmen and The Flying Lizards versions of the song were requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/9.

I was just wondering, is "Gimme Some Money", the song by Spinal Tap, a reference to "Money" by The Beatles? I mean, it looks fairly obvious to me, but can anyone confirm this? In that case it should be mentioned both here and on the appriopriate Spinal Tap page. DodgeK 20:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Some Money[edit]

"I Need Some Money," a song John Lee Hooker may have been performing live for some time previous to 1959, has lyrics that are more than coincidentally similar to "Money (That's What I Want)". For example, the first verses are "The best thing in life are free/But you can give it to the birds an' bees/ I need some money/ Need some money/ Oh yeah, what I want" versus "The best things in life are free/But you can keep 'em for the birds and bees/
Now give me money, (that's what I want) that's what I want". The music is, however, different.
The question of which lyrics came first never seems to have been settled in any formal way; John Lee Hooker has full composition credits for this song, and it has been independently covered by other artists such as James Blood Ulmer and The Doors.

Flying Lizards:

Is the word "thing", "things", most correct in the singular, or the plural?

I do note that the singular does not seem to comport with the preposition "are". Nor does it seem to match what I do think that I hear on Democracy Now!, Worldlink.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Money (That's What I Want)(Rotation Corrected).jpg[edit]

Image:Money (That's What I Want)(Rotation Corrected).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 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 06:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:JohnLeeHookerThatsMyStory.jpg[edit]

The image Image:JohnLeeHookerThatsMyStory.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar in lyrics[edit]

In this particular musical genre, correct grammar in the lyrics is not absolutely necessary. In fact, incorrect grammar may be preferable. "Thing" and "things" are equally appropriate -- the only question is what is actually performed, not what is correct grammar. Paul (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

order of bands covering this song[edit]

I added the Trashmen to the list. The list might be better if it was in chronological order. Literedball (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HARD ROCK.[edit]

i added hard rock to the genres because the song has a very hard edge to it. so hard that it sounds like ac/dc (sort of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfBucket (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What'd I say[edit]

No mention of the obvious derivation of the Ray Charles classic, popular at the time? o0drogue0o 12:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Distribution[edit]

The lede says: ".. for the Tamla label, distributed nationally on Anna Records." While the next section says: ".. licensed the song to the Anna label in 1960, which was distributed nationwide by Chicago-based Chess Records in order to meet demand." These statements may both be true, but appear to contradict. What was the relationship between the three labels? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year of release[edit]

Discogs gives the year of release as 1959: [1], not 1960. Which is correct? The label bears no date. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:
"The original release was in August, 1959, but the song didn't hit until it was re-released in early 1960 on Anna Records, which was the label formed by Berry's sisters Anna and Gwendolyn Gordy along with the songwriter Billy Davis." at http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1136. Carptrash (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully that can lead us to a WP:RS. Although it's often a useful starting point, I'm pretty sure songfacts.com is generally treated with contempt here. As there is no current source for 1960 in the article, however, I'm happy to change it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

an addition to the Covers section[edit]

that reads:

The song was frequently recorded by British bands of the 1960s. Besides the Beatles version, The Searchers included it on their first album, Meet The Searchers, released in 1963.[1][2] Also in 1963 Freddie and the Dreamers released their version on their first album, Freddie and The Dreamers.[3] The Rolling Stones put it on their 1964 EP, The Rolling Stones.[4]

has been declared to be violation of " Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis"
that quote being from an administrator who has threatened to block me if i add it again. What do you think? Carptrash (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Meet The Searchers, Pye , Monaural NLP 18086
  2. ^ The Searchers, Meet The Searchers, Compact Disc, Castle Classics CLACD 165 1989
  3. ^ Freddie and the Dreamers, The Very Best of Freddie and the Dreamers, EMI Gold, 509992 16846 2 3, 2008
  4. ^ The Rolling Stones Decca, MONO DFE 8560
These are covers. They are well known. This is a fact. So what is the issue? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think all four of those should be included. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This song was pertinent to the Motown/RnB that British bands were listening to and influenced by in the early 60s. Adding a note about these particular recordings helps to illustrate this point. The list doesn't want to be bigger, but there is a significance to the song. FWIW I hate seeing long lists on of non-notable cover versions and will normally "reduce" such lists in accordance with WP:SONGCOVER. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess my personal thoughts don't really come into it. WP:SONGCOVER is quite clear, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that to say that "the song was frequently recorded by British bands of the 1960s", we need a reliable source saying that. I'm sure one exists. But many US R&B songs of the time were performed and recorded by British bands, and I tend to sympathise with the view that - in the absence of a reliable source - simply naming one or two of them doesn't add anything of great value here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but until such a RS can be found for that claim, I see no reason to removing these 4 referenced recordings. It helps to give a bigger picture to the article about the song without overpowering the article with 100s of cover versions in list format. Anyway removal of the additions should include the Beatles recordings of the song - that too, doesn't pass WP:NSONGS! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point there. Will User:Synthwave.94 also remove the Beatles version? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be technically true in a sense, it probably shows the limitations of the guidance - the Beatles' cover is obviously notable (there are numerous reliable sources discussing the Beatles' version), and a mention of it should remain. It's surprisingly difficult to find any reliable descriptions of "Money" as a widely-covered song by British bands, even if we know it to be true. Here is one (sort of) mention, describing the Stones' version as the "obligatory recording". Most accounts of the period seem to focus on the Beatles, and don't say much about other bands who performed much of the same material at the same time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha... Here's one... "By the summer of 1961 there were over four hundred groups on Merseyside playing sets that featured the same two dozen songs, including... Barrett Strong's "Money"...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous, use it and can you refine "60s" to "early 60s" in the text? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I am happy that the article is correct with the Beatles and the 4 other early 60s recordings mentioned. However, I do think the Beatles' version fails on WP:NOTINHERITED. What I really would like to see is more about the song, and less about the various recordings - it is a song article - not a discography entry, nor a chart record entry. For instance does anybody want to look up the chord structure between the different versions. There's an interesting para to be written there if the RS can be found. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it's based on what sources say about the song, rather than what editors believe to be the case, that would be fine. I think there would be considerable opposition to the idea of removing mentions of the Beatles' cover versions of songs from articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided so far prove the 4 entries added by Carptrash are notable, as they are primary sources (I mean better sources are required). Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

synthwave.94. In which case put a refimprove tag on it. You reverted 4 times yesterday, once already today (I am just about to revert you) and you need to pay attention to WP:3RR. That appears to be a rule you ignore. WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS should also be read by you. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should all concentrate on finding good sources to expand the article. The song is discussed, apparently at some length, in Greil Marcus' book The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs (which I don't have), and the Beatles' version is discussed in this article. In this interview Marcus goes into some detail about the history of the song - both the writing and recording of the Barrett Strong original, and the Beatles version. There is a much fuller discussion of Barrett Strong's role, and and interview with him, here. There is a (possibly incomplete) list of cover versions here. All of these sources, and more, can be used to expand and develop the article, without the need for petty edit warring over whether or not to mention Freddie and the Dreamers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is annoying to me that Freddie and the Dreamers are mentioned, but with John Lee Hooker and not with the other British Invasion Beat groups, where they belong. It also amusing to discover a source (thanks, someone) exists for using the word "staple" to describe the song's role in the British music scene in the 1960s after the same word was tossed out earlier. Love is Strange (as Mickey & Sylvia taught us), but not as strange as what goes on on wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no good reason to mention Freddie and the Dreamers. The cited source mentions them, and Hooker, as examples - not in any way suggesting they were more "notable" than myriads of other examples for which sources also exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for including Freddie and company is that they were part of the group of bands that made it a staple. As far as I can see, reference #13, that follows the Dreamers and JL Hooker makes no reference to either one. But then I am one of those editors who thinks that songs that are covered by dozens or hundreds or thousands of artists should have all covers listed in a separate list. This is relevant information about the song, info that is of interest to many. Carptrash (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. WP:Paper. This is useful, pertinent, iformative and cumulatively informative. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
F & the Ds, and Hooker, are mentioned in the opening paragraph of the source here. My point was that the fact that they are mentioned there does not make them any more notable than the many versions that are not mentioned there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

an addition to the Covers section Part 2[edit]

I thought we had an agreement that the 4 noted artists could be included, but I now note we have an editor who thinks everybody who played the song is a "notable cover" Not only that they are adding categories (which are supposed to be defining) for things that are not mentioned at all, let alone in the lead. what do you all say? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are Freddie and the Dreamers more notable than The Doors?--Egghead06 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see discussion above. Also not relevant because of WP:NOTINHERITED. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Egghead06 Please explain why you remove ALL cover versions with this edit on Forever Young (Bob Dylan song), yet add on this article? Not very consistent. Why? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm obliged to explain my edits to you but........I dislike endless unsourced lists of covers and as you know they fail WP:SONGCOVER. On the other hand where a source is provided I appreciate many editors believe mentioning covers adds benefit and I have no wish to go against this. We are, after all, building an encyclopaedia. Those without source add nothing and may as well be made up.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am querying your total disrespect and misunderstanding of WP:SONGCOVER and WP:NSONGS. With or without references your two additions add nothing to the article and you have patently not being able to justify their addition. If you check the discussion above you might appreciate why the 4 recordings were added. If you don't want the discussion, I, or somebody else, should remove the Doors etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion they add nothing. In mine they do. The song was a staple of the Doors live set and a recurring sample in a Uk no. 4 hit.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not add the other 68 cover versions listed in SecondHandSongs? The original 4 were added to show how much a staple of early 60s the song was, but samples and lists of samples are regularly deleted, as for the Doors, it's an opinion which you cannot/will not substantiate. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100[edit]

7&6=thirteen, Egghead06 Martinevans123, Richhoncho, Ghmyrtle and Carptrash : what's the best form between [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]] and ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' [[Hot 100]] ? I think the first form is the most used and should be kept all over the article, but Caden keeps reverting without taking into account my remarks. What do you think about it ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did take into account your remarks so please do not accuse me of things i did not do. You keep reverting my edits and I made it clear to you many times that they are 2 completely different links to 2 very different articles. Caden cool 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Billboard Hot 100. The answer seems pretty clear that there's no need to use two links for this chart. One single link is enough. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No synthwave the answer in your link is not clear. Nowhere does it say that my way is forbidden. Furthermore, I'm really not happy how you described our conflict at wiki:manual of style. It was very misleading towards me. Caden cool 22:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted to say that the reader will be interested (if at all) only in the chart. If interest then extends to the magazine, that can be very easily be found from the chart article. A mistaken click on the first part of the name (not realising there are two link parts) will take the reader just to the magazine, which may be confusing. A single link also has the advantage of making the markup less dense. But no strong view really. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, Martinevans123. I fail to see how it is more helpful to add two links instead of one in this case. Unlike Caden said, Billboard and Billboard Hot 100 are highly similar articles. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we get that hot shot of Lady Gaga at the Billboard article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what we are debating.
I would say in one of the references and using a citation template, Billboard Hot 100 should be listed under "work" and Billboard under publisher. Just once somewhere in the article. BTW, that was a very strange outfit for Lady Gaga (although she has worn stranger). We don't want to WP:Overlink. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fNot??? As far as I'm aware, we're just debating the three instances where it appears as a link in the article. But I've probably gone a bit gaga by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:7&6=thirteen. What I was doing was adding the link to the Billboard magazine article and a link for Billboard Hot 100 chart article. Both links lead to two very different articles that I thought the readers would appreciate. Others did the same thing so I thought it was no major problem. Caden cool 22:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are denied this luxury in the UK, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Caden, only one link should be kept per WP:SEAOFBLUE / WP:OVERLINK. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though there's actually the same amount of blue?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly the same blue. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:SPECIFICLINK says, Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics. Consciously or not, Wikipedia:Record charts applies this principle when it uses a single link for Billboard Hot 100. It serves the reader well, as the name is clear and the opening sentence of Billboard Hot 100 provides an even clearer description of the relationship between Billboard and the Hot 100 as well as linking to Billboard (magazine). NebY (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with you here, NebY. Summed up very well. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's time to change [[Billboard (magazine)|''Billboard'']] [[Hot 100]] into [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]. A consensus seems to be reached now. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to rush; rushing got you and Caden into an edit-war and banned from changing it, and that's the least you've lost over it. Most of the editors you pinged haven't had time to respond, and they might like to bring something else to the discussion. Even if they don't turn up, if you back off a little and let Caden engage with the rest of us, together we might be able to reach full consensus rather than an imposed solution. NebY (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you NebY. It would really help if he did back off and gave me some space. I want other editors to weigh in on this conflict so that we can achieve a proper consensus. Rushing things will never work. Caden cool 03:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link" (WP:SEAOFBLUE) has long held consensus as part of the Manual of Style. I see no reason why it shouldn't apply here. dissolvetalk 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out User:Dissolve. That's looks perfectly clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see Caden returned to edit this talk page yesterday[2] but didn't engage any further in this discussion, perhaps in the light of the weight of the arguments. I'll make the change. As it was a duplicate link anyway, I've removed it. 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem seems to be solved and the topic ban should be lifted. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY the reason I did not comment was because I was waiting for Egghead06, Richhoncho, Ghmyrtle and Carptrash to give their feedback. Caden cool 21:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that i have understood the problem properly. If the issue is should chartings of the song be linked to the Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard magazine, then I feel no, that a link to the Hot 100 is sufficient. Carptrash (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carptrash no that was not the issue but it's no big deal because consensus has been reached anyway. Thanks for your reply. Caden cool 22:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
part of the reason that I don't get involved in these sorts of discussions is that I so often seem to miss the point of them. Thanks for letting me know that I did it again. Carptrash (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR, WP:Edit warring and WP:Own[edit]

I've watched the two of you violate black letter prohibitions. We need to get this on the talk page with all the interested editors. And once consensus is reached, User:Synthwave.94 doesn't get a veto. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you restoring this version before all of this started ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lieu of blocking both editors, I have banned Caden and Synthwave from further editing the article. They are welcome to politely discuss suggestions on the talk page. If either of them is impolite, or either edits the article, please let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi @Floquenbeam:. Please have a chat with Synthwave in regards to edit warring [3] again today. Caden cool 23:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No actual edit warring. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you were edit warring again today Synthwave. And the next time you modify my post like you did in this thread again, I'm taking you to ANI. Caden cool 00:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, if you modified another's post it would be considered to be a serious breach of proper Wikipedia etiquette. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See here [4] Caden cool 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but feel this thread is not doing much to improve this article. I suggest you both just take a break or else, I suspect that User:Floquenbeam may well turn up again and suggest an interaction ban between the two of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC) [5][reply]

I see that Flo left an edit summary saying "hat" and above my post states "nothing to do with this article".....so does this mean that the topic ban is over? Is Flo saying the ban has been lifted? Caden cool 17:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means I put the hat in the wrong place. Fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This post is cross posted to Caden's and Synthwave's talk pages.

I'm trying to figure out a way to (a) not have to personally monitor this article 24/7; (b) allow two editors who have 11 years and 47,000 edits between them - and who should thus both know better - to edit this article collaboratively; and (c) not have to write 6 paragraphs of instructions. I've come up with this:

The article topic ban is rescinded for both of you. However, you are both limited to strict WP:BRD; if either one of you changes any portion of the article from the way it is at the time of this post (22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)), and anyone (including the other editor, but also anyone else) reverts you, then you may not edit this portion of the article further, and must instead discuss the issue on the talk page. Hopefully other editors will join in, and an uninvolved editor (not one of you two) will implement consensus. This "enforced BRD" will last for 1 month from right now. If problems develop again between you two, on this article or any other article, then I anticipate going to ANI and get one or both of you sanctioned more severely, including one or more of: expanding this "enforced BRD" to include the entire encyclopedia; topic bans; interaction bans; or blocking. If you actually want an ANI thread because you think you'll be vindicated and your enemy will be cast down, I advise you to rethink; I strongly suspect both of you would get sanctioned equally. This is not a case where one of you is right and the other is wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget, you can always be nice to each other. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UserHzH[edit]

@HzH. I see you reverted my edits on March 25. Could you please point me to any policies or guidelines from WP:SONGCOVER or from WP:SONG that supports your preferred version? Failure to do so may result in other editors challenging you or reverting your edits. Caden cool 20:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm and blues[edit]

This song is totally rhythm and blues, so l changed to rhythm and blues. LSM1204 (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Money (That's What I Want). 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) 21:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Money_(That%27s_What_I_Want)&oldid=1212974226"