Talk:All by Myself

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pop music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin music Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Probably equally notable is the earlier song of the same name by Eric Carmen, so a redirect to Green Day is inadequate. Dab page, perhaps? If this were a VfD I'd vote "no", or it gets silly with dab pages for every possible song with titles recorded by various people. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this page should be made into a Disambiguation, with links to all the songs, albums, etc. that might carry this title. The present content can be used as the pertinent entry for the Green Day song (that is why I've not speedy deleted it). A VfD remains an option, of course. Regards, Redux 00:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but could not this lead to an explosion of dab pages for every possible track with a coincidentally-similar name by multiple bands? I'm not talking about cover versions, simply tracks which happen, possibly years apart, to have the same name. That's why I feel deleting would be preferable in this case; this is one I happen to know about – there must be a lot more. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, with the probability of adding to the already long list of VfD bandcruft with dab page edits along the lines of

• Yellow Submarine - track by the
  Beatles
• Yellow Submarine - track by Suzie's Big Unnotable Cat".

Tonywalton  | Talk 00:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point. But I'm thinking: if we delete it, we just leave the way open for a future recreation (for the Green Day song again, or for another track of the same name), and we'd be back to square one. By leaving it, we provide a more neutral entry that will not allow the creation of an unsuited page (which is the present article). Furthermore, we can never completely exclude, I believe, that a reader might very well type "All by Myself" in the search box, thinking of "some song". The article listing the variants would be useful to help the reader locate which song/band (s)he is looking for. I'm not thinking of a blunt list though. Perhaps we could create some content, for instance, opening along these lines: All by Myself is the title of several songs by various singers and bands, including but not necessarily limited to:(...). Maybe we could even do some research and find out which one was the very first song to carry this title, and have it included in the article. It's a thought. Regards, Redux 01:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That: "All by Myself is the title of several songs by various singers and bands, including but not necessarily limited to:(...)" is basically a disambiguation page, isn't it? Probably that would be the best solution, if members of Suzie's Big Unnotable Cat could be automatically blocked from editing the Yellow Submarine entry. I'll think a bit more, however it being past 2am where I am I think I'll drop this now for the moment! Tonywalton  | Talk 01:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the sentence about this song being sometimes used as a karaoke song, as that seems not notable enough to be included in an article. Xiner 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox was requested for the 1976 Eric Carmen recording of "All by Myself" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InnocuousPseudonym (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Hi,

"

for example). Many artists recorded this song but none of them was so successful as Dion's recording.

Above are just few reasons why Celine Dion section should be included in this article. If you want to extend the Eric Carmen section, please do so. However, the lack of informations about Carmen's release shouldn't cause the removal of Dion's section.

Vandalism is a strong word. Please use it carefully. I'm editing Wikipedia for some time and taking it very seriously.

I'm reverting your edits and starting a discussion here. Max24 (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is about being objective: You're a big fan of Celine Dion. All of your edits are Celine Dion. Fine. But the objective reality is that this article is NOT about Celine Dion. It's about a song which she happened to cover - along with many others. As it stands now - with your version reverted - the article makes reference to her version. And that's enough. So let's keep it like that and not allow our own feelings to muddy things up? Marcus22 (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think anyone has a problem with the infobox. It can certainly stay as far as I am concerned. If it has gone (again), it has gone as part of the contiguous dispute over the excess of Dion stuff. I agree that it looks OK. All the other stuff, however, is well over the top. Marcus22 (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox kept, but Eric Carmen's. He wrote it, he released it first, he got it in the charts first. Celine Dion is mentioned in the article, she is just another cover artist when it comes to this single. There are far bigger names further up the queue than her, e.g. Frank Sinatra. --WebHamster 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WebHamster puts that pretty well it seems to me. The article now reads as it should. Marcus22 (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• Well I haven't seen so much BS written in one place in quite a while. There is nothing about multiple infoboxes or even anything about covers on
  WP:SONGS. Dion is not the original artist, she's just a cover artist, one amongst many and it would be OTT and bloody stupid for song to have an infobox for every single artist that covered it. The project you bang on about doesn't cover it, it doesn't advise it. So much so I'm removing the Dion infobox. One is enough and that's the for the artist who released it and performed it first. Dion is mentioned in the article, that will suffice. The BS about her song chronology is irrelevant. This article has nothing to do with Dion other than the fact she covered it, and quite badly too in my personal opinion (which has nothing to do with my reasoning). As for fans doing "this" and fans doing "that", this again is immaterial. This is not a fanzine, it's an encyclopaedia. The Dion infobox is surplus to requirements and adds nothing to the article relevant to "All by Myself" that prose in the article couldn't do. --WebHamster 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Infobox

I read the article on

WP:SONGS

in its entirety and there is nothing as you describe.

The article is about one song and so should also include information about covers, that is commonsense. What it does not have to do though is give information about what a cover artist did before it or after it. Dion's song chronology only has relevance in an article about Dion herself. It's immaterial to this particular article. This article is purely about this one particular song. Any other songs by any other artists are irrelevant and unnecessary.

If you desperately want s singles chronology then just refer to her album the song was released from. It has relevance there.

According to

WP:SONGS there is NO requirement for a song article to have an infobox other than the original artist. Your interpretation is based on your desire to have one not on a requirement to have one. It's ridiculous to have an infobox for every single artist who ever released it over the last 32 years. --WebHamster 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

All by Myself - leave Celine Dion section

Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Administrator doesn't mean dictator. We discuss here. When the discussion is over and the consensus will be to remove Celine Dion info, we'll do it. For now, as there is no consensus, I'm reverting this article to the last version by me.

Rationale for leaving Celine Dion info:
1. Dion's version was the most successful around the world. It doesn't matter that other artists covered it too. They didn't released it as a single and had no success with it. That's why they are mentioned in covers table only.

2. Leaving just one sentence about Dion's version is making this article untrue. And we don't want Wikipedia to be a source of false informations.

3. Celine Dion's section is written according to

WP:SONGS

and doesn't brake its rules.

4. There are thousands of song articles where the cover version has its own infobox and additional informations in it's section. Here are only few examples (I can add many more if you want):

Madonna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Cry_for_Me_Argentina_%28Madonna_song%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_%28Madonna_song%29#Madonna_version

Mariah Carey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27ll_Be_There
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_Love_%28song%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Arms_%28song%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetheart_%28song%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_All_Odds_%28Take_a_Look_at_Me_Now%29#Mariah_Carey_version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Night_a_DJ_Saved_My_Life_%28song%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringin%27_on_the_Heartbreak

Whitney Houston
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Will_Always_Love_You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Every_Woman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Believe_in_You_and_Me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_by_Step_%28Annie_Lennox_song%29

Christina Aguilera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Wash_%28song%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Marmalade

Britney Spears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Rock_%27n%27_Roll#Britney_Spears_version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Prerogative#Cover_versions

I say KEEP the Celine Dion section. If you want to keep/delete it, please write your comments below. Thanks. Max24 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (boyblackuk) - Celine Dion's version of the song is the most successful version of the song and is known as a signature song for her and we must keep the information in wikipedia. What does it matter to other people if it is in wikipedia, think of the people who are interested in it, this is the best place to go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.59.100 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not bother logging in as 'an interested party' and saying 'Keep'. This is not a vote. The Dion section is OUT because it is inappropriate. And that looks like thats all there is to it unless someone can come up with some good reasons to say otherwise. Marcus22 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave you 4 good reasons. And Celinefanatictocorrector gave even more. Boyblackuk has been editing Wikipedia for over a year and his vote counts. He's not any less important than you are. He just wasn't logged in writting his comment. Anyway for now there are two votes for delete and three for KEEP (including Celinefanatictocorrector). Max24 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And it's obvious from your contributions and Celinefanatictocorrector's username that you have a POV to push. There is no good reason for an additional infobox especially given that
  WP:SONGS, there is no guideline about multiple infoboxes. For an article this size any more infoboxes (not to mention God-knows how many alternate covers) will make the page oppressive and will totally unbalance it. Just because you've come up with some reasons does not mean that they are good reasons. If you want to deify Dion then please feel free, just don't bring it to Wikipedia. As far as this song is concerned she is just another cover artist out of many. She is mentioned in the article. That should suffice. As regards the IP editor we have no proof whatsoever that he/she who is who either you or he/she says they are. This is the whole point of logging in. Now please redirect your fanaticism somewhere else. --WebHamster 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What about many other articles (I have posted some examples) which have cover versions infoboxes and sections? Max24 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I already answered it. I don't norally like to repeat myself so I'll give you a clue.
  WP:WAX. --WebHamster 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WebHamster, you're not coming off well in this discussion at all. You are accusing others of fanaticism and claiming that they are pushing some kind of agenda, all while utterly failing to address the points they make. I don't see how being a fan of an artist necessarily disqualifies them from having something useful to offer. On the contrary, fans are going to contribute a lot of information because they are interested in and have collected information about their favourite artists. Are you suggesting that's a problem? The content being discussed is not biased. It's simple, factual information, and the suggested presentation is very much in line with what has been done in many other similar articles. In fact, if anyone in this whole discussion has said anything to betray an inappropriate bias, it's you: "this article has nothing to do with Dion other than the fact she covered it, and quite badly too in my personal opinion." Of course, you disclaim that your opinion on the quality of the cover has anything to do with your desire to minimize its inclusion in the article. But let's be honest: if you were really as dispassionate as you claim to be, you probably would have been able to suppress your urge to take such a cheap shot.

The reason for wanting to include the infobox has been stated repeatedly, yet you continue to avoid the key point and simply dismiss it as "BS". So, let me spell it out for you: it is true that Celinefanatictocorrector was mistaken in claiming that

WP:SONGS

guidelines) if they can not be used to navigate through the full catalog of an artist's singles? If you do not have a good answer to this, I think that's reason enough to reinstate the infobox.

It has already been pointed out that many other song articles are structured this way, with plenty of examples. In fact, most of the modern songs referred to by the

model article

. Granted, it's arguable whether a solo recording by an artist that was part of the band that recorded the original is strictly a cover, but it's by far the closest "excellent example" that is offered, and so it's a strong precedent.

While you've dismissed the excellent reasons for including the infobox that have been presented here, you have offered precious little in terms of justification for removing it: specifically, you've said that it's not required and that it would "make the page oppressive and...totally unbalance it." Of course, the former is not at all justification for removing it (it's no stronger an argument than "it is not forbidden"), and the latter is entirely a personal judgement. And, again, we've already seen, your opinion on this matter is suspect, as it's as likely to be based on your distaste for the Dion recording as on your aesthetic sensibilities.

If you really want to improve the balance of this article, why not do a little research on the song itself, or the original recording, and add some more information to the first section? That would seem a considerably more constructive approach than purging useful information about a recording that you don't particularly care for, don't you think?

You've said this isn't a vote, but I'm free to express my opinion, nonetheless. I say KEEP the infobox, and if all the additional information about the Dion recording is so offensive to your sensibilities, lose that. The Celine Dion template at the bottom is also appropriate, again as a useful navigational tool for readers interested in finding related information about her and her recordings. Fabtasticfoo (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What you do or don't think of me is both immaterial and irrelevant. I've answered all of the points covered by other people's comments. Just because you don't like them does not mean that I didn't answer them. But as a quick response (I've already wasted enough time on this already) is that the chronology can be dealt with by adding the song info box either to the article on the relevant album or to the Dion discography article. It's not as if there aren't already any number of Dion pages created for every time she farts. If you want to put a Dion template at the bottom of the page then do so. It takes up little room and can help in the pandering to the Dion fanatics. As I keep saying, the text in the article can cover the relevant facts about Dion's version, it does not require an infobox to do so let alone 2 or 3 versions of the cover image.

• Let's get something straight. I have no problems at all including details about Dion's cover version regardless of how good or bad it is. I just don't feel that it warrants an infobox. An infobox does not give any extra details about the song, and this is what the article is about, the song, not Dion's song list, not her album sales, not what the album cover looked like. It's about the song and as such any Dion infobox is surplus to requirements, additionally what Dion recorded before or after is irrelevant to this article. That's what her discography is for. What is far more important and relevant is Carmen's involvement.

• I have far less bias than any of the other people in this debate. I am totally uninvolved in either the Dion fanboy faction or the Carmen fanboy faction. I enjoy good music regardless of who it's by. I don't have an axe to grind and my only involvement in this is to maintain good articles. It's already been demonstrated ad nauseum that Dion fans try to add stuff about her everywhere they can, often to the detriment of the original article. If it's relevant then I have no problem with that, if it's superfluous, like here, then I attempt to stop it. But if you truly think I have some anti-Dion bias then may I suggest you make a request at
  WP:3PO for some truly independent and uninvolved opinions. I will go along with whatever the consensus is of independant, neutral and impartial editors. Though I will resist the overt Dion fans because their agenda is to fill the place with Dion factoids, it is not their desire to improve articles like this one as such it's POV as far as I'm concerned. So do you want to make the request, or shall I? --WebHamster 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't agree with the suggestion to place a Single infobox on the article for the album or the artist's discography.
  model article. Fabtasticfoo (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Oh dear, you should learn your song history, my friend. The two infoboxes in Layla BOTH refer to the original artist; Clapton whilst with Derek and the Dominoes (info box 1) and Clapton alone (info box 2). That's why it has the two boxes. There is no info box for anyone who has covered the song... Marcus22 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but I already acknowledged that the Layla isn't strictly a cover and that it's not a perfect analogue. In fact, what I originally wrote, "a solo recording by an artist that was part of the band that recorded the original", captures exactly what you just described. My point was only to demonstrate the precedent of having two Single infoboxes on a song article, each for different recordings of that song. I must admit, I was fishing a bit, because WebHamster still hadn't really stated the basis for his objection to the second infobox. Since then, he has made things a little more clear. Fabtasticfoo (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ill just throw this out there, but... Generally isnt there a wikipedia guidline that pushes for common usage, IE what is the popular conception on the street. I doubt anyone on the street under 50 associates this song with Carmen or knows who he is. The Dion version was such a megahit compaired to the original (although it was also a hit) that it is the version that is in popular usage. IE David Foster re aranged the song, and that is the version that someone every year on every single Idol show the world around tries, and fails to execute. I just thought I would point out that not having a Dion Infobox is offsides in more ways than one. Besides your interfering with the Dion discography flow, and the Dion article, and the Dion project are goldstar. That means they are considered among the best articles on Wikipedia. That said the Dion version is a different version, it is not the original arangment. So it is the same, but its different. And there are no citations on the Carmen article, IE where the chart positions came from, because as I had been led to understand it, the song (his original) was a hit in the UK and nowhere else. --134.117.151.251 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd be wrong. WP is about accuracy not "common usage". Regardless of how successful any cover versions were or the demographic of those versions the fact remains that it's Carmen's song. For example look at "I Shot the Sheriff", this was a Bob Marley song, but the covers by Clapton and Harrison are much better known. Likewise J. J. Cale's Cocaine is much better known as a Clapton/Cream song. Yet both of those only contain the original artist's infoboxes and they have both outsold "All By Myself" over time. "Call Me the Breeze", another Cale original was better known as a hit for Lynyrd Skynyrd. Comfortably Numb has been covered by many artists but the only infoboxes on that article are by the original artists. I can go on but I won't. There are as many precedents for covered songs to not have additional artist's infoboxes as there for them so as an argument that is cancelled out. --WebHamster 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a stab at a compromise

I disagree with Max24's most recent version of this article. (this version). Four lines about the original artist's song, followed by five paragraphs, four CD coverarts and track listings for six different releases of Celine Dion's cover is a touch unbalanced. It gives a passing mention to Eric Carmen before diving into Dion-cruft and IMO fails to give

]

I'm all for the extra text for the Dion cover and I agree that the 2 sentences isn't enough but I still maintain that the infobox is unnecessary. What little it contains can easily be included in the prose. Dion's previous and next single are irrelevant to this article. To maintain the chronology it should be included in either her discography or the relevant album article. It is far more appropriate to those articles than this one. Likewise if the fanboys want to read about Dion's specific take on this song then it can quite easily be included on the album article that the single came from, maybe even adding a See Also link at the bottom of this article. --WebHamster 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, the Eric Carmen infobox is also unnecessary. Since we're in agreement that that infobox is fine, the argument you need to provide is why we should include one and not the other. I maintain that there is more than enough space for two, and a Dion infobox is appropriate since this song was released by her as a single. There's no rule against multiple infoboxes in one article, but that's not to say that Dion's can't be further reduced in size if there are objections to specific parts of it. –

Steel 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The Carmen infobox is there because

WP:SONGS suggests that all song articles should have an infobox, not because I say it should. As he wrote it, performed it first, recorded it first, released it first, entered the charts with it first it's entirely reasonable that it's his infobox that should be on there. I'd say the same if this was a Dion original that had been covered by Carmen. --WebHamster 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As regards the 'evidence' that there are plenty of covered song articles with multiple infoboxes, well I'd hazard a guess that there are far more that don't, especially the ones that haven't been covered by gay icons! --WebHamster 17:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than hazarding a guess, I just started looking at a bunch (starting with those songs linked to from or mentioned on the Cover version article) and keeping a tally. I found that the split is pretty even between those with just one infobox and those with two or more. I didn't include any articles without a standard infobox in my tally. Assuming WebHamster's comment about "gay icons" was serious and not just another attempt to be inflammatory, it is most definitely not true: I easily found Single infoboxes for recordings of covers by all manner of artists, including The Beatles, Aerosmith, The Clash, Green Day, and Guns N' Roses. Not surprisingly, those artists with more extensive and unified coverage (including single chronologies) are much more likely to have infoboxes included for their commercially released cover singles. So my conclusion is that additional Single infoboxes for covers are by no means ubiquitous, but that they exist where people have bothered to add them. I wonder if anyone could come up with an example or two of singles chronologies that are broken due to the exclusion of an infobox for a cover version. That would be a pretty strong precedent for the removal that WebHamster is advocating. Fabtasticfoo (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steel. I think this is an eminently reasonable proposal. More information on the original recording would improve the balance of the article, but until that comes, I think your compromise is perfect. Fabtasticfoo (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steel. I would like to add more Dion's info but I will wait till someone adds more information on the original recording (or maybe I will do it later). So shall we rv article to that version or are we waiting for another priceless comment by WebHamster? Max24 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So add more info into the article. No-one's stopping you. Add the Dion template, no-one's stopping you doing that either. My objections are not about additional info about Dion's cover single. It's purely about the infobox. Nothing more, nothing less. Incidentally, my comments are free though if you wish me to invoice you then please let me know. --WebHamster 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Carmen infobox is integral to the article as the song is by Carmen. The Dion box is being pushed by Dionites and is NOT integral to the article. Simple really. Marcus22 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I really think that the sticking point is the distinction between a song and a recording of it.
  WP:SONGS has set us up for failure here by continually conflating the two. In this case, the song is by Carmen, in that he wrote it, and, in addition, he was also the first artist to record it. But, that's not always the case. What do you do if the writer of the song never recorded it, or recorded it after another artist? Multiple infoboxes in those cases? No infobox? How exactly do we decide what is "integral" to the article? People are taking a very hard line based on what seems a pretty arbitrary distinction. Most of the information captured by in the infobox is actually about the recording, not the song itself. Various recordings of the song, especially those released as singles and most especially those released and widely heard, are very much a part that song's story. What is the convincing reason for throwing away that information about those recordings? Fabtasticfoo (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 6 votes for KEEP (Max24, Celinefanatictocorrector, boyblackuk, Fabtasticfoo, 134.117.151.251, Steel). Two votes for DELETE (Marcus22, WebHamster 23). I'm reverting the article to the COMPROMISE version by Steel. Max24 13:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "6 votes for KEEP"? Laughable. I've reverted it back. Marcus22 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we not have an edit war, please? I'm in favour of Steel's compromise version, but can we just leave it as is while it's being discussed? Fabtasticfoo (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, deffo delete. Notanothercelinedionarticle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.250.106.15 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh look, here's one from King Bilbo I saying 'Delete' - now it's 6 - 4.
    User:King Bilbo I

Break

The length of the Dion version at present makes an infobox redundant and quite messy. However, this whole debate is quite

]

To be fair, there was more text (see [1]) but this was removed. Do you think that should be restored? –

Steel 00:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but I also sympathise with above comments concerning balance. So, yes, that Dion stuff should be restored but the missing sections should be also added to address the balance issues. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some poor deluded editors just can't face the truth... Celine Dion Forum, GayMonkey.com, Ethan Says: Homorific, The Guardian plus plenty more. Just Google ""celine dion" "gay icon"" for yourself. --WebHamster 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread GayMonkey and the Guardian more closely. Also, blogs and forums are not considered reliable sources. —

talk) 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I did read them, they disagreed with her being a gay icon. To disagree with someone then someone has to already have had that opinion before you can disagree with it. No? For these articles to have mentioned her as being one (regardless of them believing it/agreeing with it) shows that someone (quite a few someones) thinks so.

This isn't a question of needing a reliable source as the "gay icon" comments aren't a part of the article. It's just a 2 min search to show that there is evidence (outside of Wikipedia) of Dion being considered to be a gay icon. --WebHamster 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

This is one of the most unbalanced articles I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia. The amount of trivial information about Céline Dion’s cover is utterly appalling. Hopefully, the most obsessed have moved on by now and some sanity can be injected into this article.

(I have renamed this section since it was a link to the article which seemed utterly redundant and non-descriptive.) ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 12 years after the edit war on this page, it looks ridiculous. There are about 770 words on Dion's cover version of this song, and only 420 words on the original version. I cannot imagine what would justify having almost twice as much information about the cover version as the original. To pick but one data point, the cover version only reached Billboard #4, versus #2 for the original. Can there be some sanity about this, and the Dion section reduced to its proper proportion? 68.134.232.137 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the actual coverage in both sections is proportional to the easily available coverage. When the original version came out -- pre-internet -- there really wasn't as much coverage about individual songs. The internet allows for much broader coverage on increasingly narrow topics.

Yes, it looks particularly lopsided because of the multiple versions/edits/mixes of the Dion version and the proliferation of singles charts in countries where they simply did not exist when the original was released.

I am not a fan of either artist. Having long hated the original before discovering my hatred of Dion, I'm not particularly biased here. If there is material missing re the original, look for it and add it. If there is specific material re the Dion version that you feel should be removed (on its own merits, not out of some kind of "fairness" to the original) discuss that specifically rather than vague requests for "reduction" or "proportionality". - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the Eric Carmen song with a notable version being covered by Celine Dion. Both deserve mention on this article about the song. There should not be a separate article for the same song. There are few examples where that is the case, and those that do exist should or will be merged with the original article eventually.

As a compromise, I believe the article is now split up in an appropriate manner, where the main version maintains its notability and visibility at the top of the article, followed by the list of covers, and then finally, as one of the more notable cover version on a worldwide scale, info on the Celine Dion version follows that. This separates the original from the rest, gives both their space without taking away from the other. I did tone down the Celine Dion article of the song as it had way to many "extra" or "alternate" sleeve pictures. I also took out her discography template because it's just not something needed when your looking at a heavily covered song and what could end up being a dozen or more artist templates. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-------
I just came here to the discussion see why there was so much on Celine. I've never heard her sing it. Have only heard Carmen and Il Divo. I thought it was too much about her in here for an article on the song. Right now it seems unbalanced. I think until all the artists are researched and found if they did singles or not then Ms. Dion's should be toned down. No album cover, no listings of all her other songs. I think it should just have a link to the other pages. To have some "BTW" info is fine. To have it out of proportion to all the other cover artists does not make an smooth article. Don't blame it on the others not having enough fans. Pretend you're a General Editor, not an article editor. Let's take out the picture of her or at the minimum, make it no bigger than an inch. I think it's bigger than the original artist's photo. Kristinwt (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I just checked. Original artist: 3" of copy. Dion's copy length: 7" it's out of proportion.So, the subhead is twice as long as the main. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I know, but this is ridiculous. Kristinwt (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have reduced number of national charts as

point 6
"The number of charts should include no more than ten national charts, and up to ten additional charts, but no more than eighteen charts total" As this is the English Language Wiki the charts retained are the English speaking countries. There is an article on this song in the French Wiki, so the French and Belgian charts would be better placed there. Arjayay (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been

and removed a cover version which was only on You-tube, albeit that it was by an artist with their own WP page. I have also changed the section "Covers" to "Notable covers" and added hidden text "NB please only include covers which have been commercially released or aired on national TV" to the top and bottom of the list. My concern is that if we allowed one You-tube version, we could be over-run by dozens.
I would like to propose that we also remove versions by non-notable artists i.e artists without their own WP article - is there support for this? - Arjayay (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully concur, Arjayay. There should already be a Wikipolicy about this somewhere. The highest charting two or three versions should be quite ample. These may or may not include the writer's own rendition of a song. Being a US or UK Top 40 chart hit should be the chief determining criteria.JGabbard (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for details about the run-in Carmen had with the Rachmaninoff estate and was shocked that there's no mention of it. The melody of the verse is taken from a Rachmaninoff piece that Carmen erroneously believed was in the public domain. I'll try to find a good source and add it to the article.PacificBoy 07:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the article, until removed in this dif which claimed that the source cited was not a

WP:RS. I agree it should be reinstated, but I could not find a Reliable source to support this. Arjayay (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

In the United States, Piano Concerto No. 2 was always in the public domain. Any such "run-in", if there was one, would have been limited to other countries. Piriczki (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued to know how a Concerto can "always" be in the public domain, please explain.
When you say "limited to other countries", you appear to be dismissing almost the entire planet. Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This composition was first published outside the United States by a foreign national prior to 1909 and thus did not have copyright protection in the U.S. and was always in the public domain in the U.S. The vaguely alluded to "run-in" (what jurisdiction? what year?) would have involved the copyright in a country other than the U.S. so the search for the elusive reliable source should be directed there, wherever "there" is. Piriczki (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my original statement. The issue at hand is explained clearly; it's not "vaguely alluded to." Arjayay seemed to understand what I was talking about.PacificBoy 12:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the copyright status (or lack thereof), if there was exception taken by the estate, it deserves a mention. As a writer, I'm versed in copyright law. Nowhere did I say that the estate was completely valid in challenging the copyright or that they challenged it in the U.S.PacificBoy 12:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found some reliable sources although neither answer all the questions one might have. From what I can tell from other sources, the work was public domain in the U.S. but still under copyright in other countries but the cited sources don't go into that detail. In any case it appears the matter was nothing more than an ordinary business transaction. Piriczki (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of whether this work was ever registered in the US, but under US law a 1909 copyright would have expired in 1937. It could have been renewed and extended to 1965, but by 1972 it clearly would have been in the public domain under US copyright law. These deadlines were changed in 1980, but the changes to the law would not affect a work that was already in the public domain. If Carmen agreed to pay royalties to Rachmaninov's estate, he did it out of personal good will, and not out of any legal obligation. --Dwlloyd810 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)User:Dwlloyd810[reply]

Why isn't this article entitled "All By Myself" or, at least, "All By Myself (Eric Carmen song)". His own website consistently calls it "All By Myself": [2] as do most, if not all, chart sites. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles are defined by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) which starts:-

Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence.

Personally, I prefer more capitals than Wikipedia's guidelines suggest - but have to accept that standardization has some benefits. Arjayay (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced genre will be revert. 183.171.169.210 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "Notable covers" is becoming unwieldy, with several names where neither the artist, nor the album, has a Wikipedia article - many are just sung once by a contestant in a talent show.
I think we need defined parameters for inclusion in this list, to ensure the covers are truly "notable", and avoid the list becoming overlong.
Demanding that the album or film featuring the song has its own article may be over-steep, so I suggest that the artist should have their own article on the English Wikipedia.
Comments, or alternative suggestions, welcome - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire list was removed on 19 July 2015‎ - The relevant guideline is

WP:COVERSONG

which requires the version to be  :-

• discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song,

or

• meet the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS. which are:-

To be ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.

To have won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

So, any covers need to be have charted, won an award, or been discussed in an article on "All by Myself" - Arjayay (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thunder.prohosting.com/~euro100/archive/1996/euro9652.txt
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259376&year=1996
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259165.xml?year=1996&type=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—

]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All by Myself. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infodisc.fr/Detail_S_CD.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—

]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on All by Myself. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160602084720/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092 to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141021102718/http://50.6.195.142/archives/70s_files/1976YESP.html to http://50.6.195.142/archives/70s_files/1976YESP.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140520005319/http://www.celinedion.com/ca/music/c%C3%A9line-une-seule-fois-live-2013-2cddvd to http://www.celinedion.com/ca/music/c%C3%A9line-une-seule-fois-live-2013-2cddvd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708214631/http://music.uk.launch.yahoo.com/read/review/12030099 to http://music.uk.launch.yahoo.com/read/review/12030099
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141018211900/http://www.ultratop.be:80/fr/annual.asp?year=1996 to http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=1996

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (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) 14:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All by Myself. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611194337/http://longboredsurfer.com:80/charts.php?year=1997 to http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1997

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (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) 13:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on All by Myself. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919040910/http://www.ericcarmen.com/eric/interviews3.htm to http://www.ericcarmen.com/eric/interviews3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928175027/http://www.ericcarmen.com/eric/interviews.htm to http://www.ericcarmen.com/eric/interviews.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=1997
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915113526/http://www.celinedion.com/celinedion/english/music.cgi?album_id=8 to http://www.celinedion.com/celinedion/english/music.cgi?album_id=8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127174146/http://thespanishversion.org/topten.html to http://thespanishversion.org/topten.html

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.

}} (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) 00:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the ongoing retail apocalypse phenomenon, as well as websites such as Commercials I Hate and Am I Right, we need to eliminate songs from commercials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyFinke2020 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation does not make sense. How do the so-called "retail apocalypse" and the existence of these websites impact what Wikipedia includes? Please discuss the issue on your user talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]