Talk:All by Myself

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Green Day song 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Karaoke mention 

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox

message: *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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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 appropriate weight to each version. In that sense, I with the concerns expressed by Marcus and WebHamster.Clearly, though, the current version of the article (as I type, this version) is disputed and I think this could be improved too. Dion's cover is, yes, a cover. That said, this cover was a huge success; success greater than that received by the original (going by what I've read above, do correct me if I'm wrong). It reached #1 all over the place and, in particular, stayed in Adult Contemporary for a stupidly long time. In that sense, giving a mere two lines to it is not providing due weight any more than the other version.I've taken a stab at a compromise here. I've also reverted myself so we can discuss it without an edit war. I think this is the most balanced option so far; the Celine Dion cover comes second in the article, is clearly marked as a cover in a section titled "covers", and doesn't go overboard, yet it is given space appropriate to the hit that it was. Both have infoboxes. I understand the infobox concern above, but if the convention across the rest of the site is to give each single an infobox of its own then we should probably do that here, especially since there's plenty of space to do so if Dion's infobox appears in a slightly diminished form (i.e. without all the extra and irrelevant covers). This is my proposed version. What does everyone think? – Steel 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Taking a stab at a compromise 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: Have reduced number of national charts as WP:MUSTARD#Record charts 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)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: I have been WP:BOLD 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Covers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Key issue missing

message: Unsourced genre will be revert. 183.171.169.210 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on All by Myself. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminating songs from commercials