Talk:San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)

Ironic

I took out "It has an ironic meaning because both true 'hippies' and citizens of Haight Ashbury did not welcome the influx of college and high school wannabe hippies, as well as tourists, who flocked to San Francisco during the summer of 1967." because it had no references and sounded like it was written by an angry hippie. Provide references and it can remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.222.84 (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This was actually referenced on a BBC Radio 4 programme following the recent death of the songs authour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.212.2 (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Older?

Long years ago, i heard If you're going to Sacramento, be shure to wear a riffle in your hand, is it older ?--Breugelius (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Backing band

It is assumed, that the backing band were The Mamas & the Papas in the same line-up they recorded their 1967 album Deliver. So the personnel would be:

• Scott McKenzie - vocals, acoustic guitar
• John Phillips - acoustic (twelve-string) rhythm guitar, sitar (heard during bridge), producer
• Joe Osborn - bass guitar
• Gary L Coleman - orchestra bells and chimes

rumored:

• Hal Blaine - drums, percussion

addiontinal personnel:

• Lou Adler - producer (with Philips)

Saemikneu (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Charts: aligned left. Eh?

Why, for goodness’ sake? I’ve not seen this on any other charts section. Boscaswell talk 08:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Image

The image that has been shown previously in the infobox is of an internationally obscure Benelux version of the single (CBS 2816, here), which is not the original issue. It conveys none of the information shown in the one I posted - from here - which, as well as being the original US issue (Ode 103) shows one of the variant spellings of the song title, and clearly shows the name of the songwriter, producers, and publishing company. That is, it conveys relevant information. Images should not be added to infoboxes on the basis that they are attractive - they should convey additional information. The Ode label image does that - the Benelux CBS image does not. I've raised the issue at WT:SONG, so other editors may wish to input to the discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Cover art is more culturally relevant, especially when it contains an image of the artist. Picture sleeves connect the article with times, people and places. They have consistently proven to be of greater interest to readers than a plain side label which simply duplicates printed information that can be more easily read elsewhere in the infobox. And if you feel that talk page discussion needs to occur before an image is changed, then by all means please do that next time before you arbitrarily change another one. - JGabbard (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed it having no idea that you were so wedded to the Benelux version - it seemed quite obvious to me that the original label was of greater encyclopedic value in every way and so I did not "feel that talk page discussion needs to occur before an image is changed". I also think that - per MOS:LEADIMAGE - readers would expect to see an image of the original version of a recording, as discussed in the article, rather than a later image from a different territory. My version, now, includes the Benelux image lower down the page though I'd be happy for it to be removed. I'd be interested in other editors' comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Ghmyrtle, for all the reasons set out and the Wikipedia editing guidance notes he has referred to. The other sleeve is possibly more visually 'of the moment', but should not be used in the infobox, if at all. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Usually, I go for picture sleeves, because they show the artist, the title is prominent, etc. But this one's a dud – the only thing that's clear is the title of the B-side; the photo is washed out and really doesn't convey the place or include McKenzie. In this case, the original 45 label does a better job. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If you were to go for a variant, for whatever reason, I personally think the one included in Scott McKenzie's own article is a better bet than the Benelux version. Just saying, not that I think a variant is that necessary. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Because Tillywilly17 has vandalised the file page, I'm not sure which version you mean. The McKenzie article now shows a sheet music cover - which is fine on that article, but not on this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Retaining both images is quite acceptable, although I would still prefer that a more aesthetically suitable image replace the side label. - JGabbard (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Btw, "side label" is not a term in common use, is it? I know what you mean, but.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I used to collect covers, had one on my PC. Uploaded and it was put in the article, was not expecting that to happen; was submitting for evaluation by other editors. In my notes, I said if I did anything wrong, just delete it. It is 52 years old, don't know if it is owned or copyrighted. Hope this helps, both of the prior covers pretty bad, this one appropriate for article, shows artist, looks 50 years old too. Tillywilly17 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tillywilly17:. It seems that you changed, without any prior discussion, the image file with the result that a sheet music image was in place here. That is unacceptable behaviour, even if it was done in error. Please learn how to upload new images correctly, rather than overwriting existing image files. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)