Talk:Yesterday

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Time

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles

Redirect?

Johnleemk set a redirect from Talk:Yesterday to Talk:Yesterday (Song). I fail to see why the talk for a disambiguation page should redirect to one of the disambiguated pages. I'm removing it for now; should anyone disagree, please explain why you think this is needed. --Pathoschild 11:43, 28 September 2005

Just to clarify, that was a mix-up caused by the fact that Yesterday (song) used to reside at Yesterday. When I moved it, the talk page was moved also, and the software automatically set this talk page to redirect to the talk page of Yesterday (song). Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All is explained then. Thanks. --Pathoschild 11:43, 28 September 2005

second paragraph

The second paragraph seems childish to me, like something a 10 year old would say to confuse his classmates. Also, I think that most people know how "yesterday" works, and that explaining day after, before, and so on is sort of irrelevant. I'm deleting it.

I am sorry you feel that way, but I don't like it is no reason for reversion.(3ucky(3all 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed

I just removed the Boyz II Men cover version of Yesterday from the page, as this cover version doesn't even have its own article, and according to the original's article "the Guinness Book of Records suggests over 3000 different cover versions to date." I don't see any reason this particular cover version deserves a mention, while none of the other does. BsL (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

The calculation seems to be wrong: Yesterday is the day before today. Yesterday was September 0, 2008 (UTC). Mamen (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, quite wrong: At the Prime Meridian, yesterday's date was 30 November 2010 (UTC). 2010-12-07. Yesterday is NOT a week ago? I'm thinking of removing this unless someone has a better plan? 76.121.183.171 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date is correct for me. Perhaps you're viewing a cached version. Try purging your cache. Anemone Projectors 03:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plase fix issue with date. The date is always the day before page was edited last time, not the day before today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.106.212 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no article for "Yesterday"?

Why is there no article for "Yesterday"? I mean the yesterday as in the day before today meaning. Why not? I always wanted to know why "yesterday" is called "yesterday". Sailor_Moon (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to the wiktionary in the article (wikt:yesterday) which has some etymology information. --Amalthea^Talk 22:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What could we put in the article? See WP:NOTADICTIONARY. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could list all the things that happened yesterday ;-) Anemone Projectors 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Yesterday (song) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a WP:Permalink of the move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of the Beatles song

Is there a reason why we can't place the Beatles song higher up on the page. Like it or not, there was a reason it was the primary topic here for more than a decade (and still should be if not for one of the worst closes I've seen). Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 14:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the fun some of you have been having with this ;). May I suggest a compromise? That the music sub-heading becomes the first heading, with songs the first sub-heading and the Beatle song top of the list of songs, thereby being the 3rd entry on the page. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 22:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If anybody is unhappy please discuss here to reach a new consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that, although I prefer Calidum's original formulation. In addition, the top section is pretty busy (and not standard style). Anyone object to me making changes - which of course can be altered later. Normally would be bold, but not after the longish move discussion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think Film should always come before Music as generally shorter, and generally more notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, IIO, but in the interest of peace and understanding and offering an olive branch to those editors who think the WP:AT POLICY that reads 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. i.e. SONGDAB doesn't apply to them. I am sure in a few years films will be back towards the top and nobody will care. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a general rule that films come first, but can anyone honestly say any of the films on the page come close to the notability of the song in question? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the application of what is primary use, primary topic, more notable and the like is disruptive and not beneficial to an encyclopedia. If you don't believe me just look at this discussion and the RMs. If this was a paper encyclopedia the difference would be in the size of the article. I'd stick with alphabetical and be done with it. However we have a compromise which looks like all are prepared to accept - no point rocking the boat further. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're so concerned about style at this dab page it's useful to look at what MOS:DAB actually says. Under WP:DABORDER it says "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below." As it was shown that a significant majority of readers are looking for the Beatles song, it shouldn't be buried. Either it can go at the top along with Yesterday (past) or it can stay where it in the current arrangement, so long as readers can find it easily.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Yesterday topic is an unusual one for DAB and I am not surprised there is some discussion - and compared to some this discussion has been mild. The thing is, the DAB page doesn't have a direct correlation in "real" encyclopedia. The entries would be contiguous and you'd flip through a few pages to find what you like. Here, we have special navigation pages that can adjust and be more efficient for most readers. The WP:MOSDAB tries to codify this so that pages can be useful and quick. At times, like here, this purpose is at odds with what people might expect. I'm okay with that driving decisions on the page, I just want people to understand the MOSDAB issues before (at least as I see it) deciding to make an exception. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I first suggested in the discussion of the recent requested move of "Yesterday" to "Yesterday (Beatles song)", that move having been implemented, the title "Yesterday" should be a redirect to "Yesterday (Beatles song)", as the latter very clearly meets the definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The disambiguation page should be left at "Yesterday (disambiguation)". — Jaydiem (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yesterday (time) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]