Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire (Fall Out Boy song)

Merge proposal
Per 's mainpage comment here, I'm proposing we merge this page with We Didn't Start the Fire. Without objection, this will occur within a week. Feel free to discuss. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that this be moved to Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire, per Merging. That being said, oppose:
 * per WP:NSONGS, Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original. This article is over 450 words long, it has an infobox and a table and a navbox and a blockquote. It contains information on its composition timeline, its result, and the critical analysis, both of which are distinct from the target article. The target article, We Didn't Start the Fire, is 1144 words – I would be curious to hear how we merge these articles without 1. the cover taking up 28% of the resulting space, or 2. losing key information.
 * per WP:NOMERGE number 3, Merging should be avoided if ... The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short. This article pretty indisputably meets GNG – I count significant coverage from four RSP-greenlit sources (Slate, Los Angeles Times, Polygon, USA Today).
 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a notable cover. Covering this sufficiently would take up an undue amount of space at We Didn't Start the Fire. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Not remotely notable enough for its own article. Covers go in the main article page, unless there are very significant reasons why not, per years of practice that has not failed us. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The basic formatting of song cover versions, as most pages are normally formatted, is to put them in the article of the original song: examples include: 1985 (SR-71 song) and We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together (i'm talking about the taylor's version mind you). And probably many, many more that I'm sure you can find yourselves. Chchcheckit (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a typical cover, though. It's gotten a significant amount of media coverage for its deviations from the original song. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A separate article is unnecessary. Most of the article is taken up by a long unreferenced list (OR?) that fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING,WP:MINORASPECT, and probably a few other guidelines. Merge the informative sourced parts to the original song article. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to remove that part, but the article still spans 450 words without the list – still a bit big for the original, I think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Size is not an issue. Many FAs are longer (some much longer) than this article merged with the original. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Should be part of a section regarding song covers, most songs are formatted on Wikipedia to have sections for covers from other artists. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The cover does not deserve a separate article. Calling it a "notable cover" is an exaggeration. What would you call "Fast Car"? "Hypernotable"? It has been performing much better (and it has no own article). GeorgeJack (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; most notable covers haven't been split out because the RfC only closed six months ago. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is independently notable, and therefore should not be merged. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the F.O.B song differs from it's source material enough to be considered less a cover and more an homage, however I can see how it
 * is similar enough to the Billy Joel work be in the same article. Perhaps if the two are to merge, it would at least be best to add a section about the Fall Out Boy song, [As I've seen done on other song articles, such as certain songs like John the Revelator, who's origins as a gospel ditty and it's later descendant of the Depeche Mode song are both explained in the same article.] MetricPin
 * s. MetricPin (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sidenote here, I was mistaken. The Blind John Willie original version of John the Revelator does indeed have the sub-articles I meant, but I forgot that the Depeche Mode cover was combined with the article for Lilian. Sorry! MetricPin
 * MetricPin (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can someone uninvolved please close? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , i'd recommend asking WP:RfCl. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Obvious, "have y'all even read current policy?" oppose. The argument to merge seems to boil down to "that's how we usually do it", ignoring the fact that policy required it to be done that way until last year, when the policy was changed. So of course that's how most articles do it; no one had the option to do otherwise, previously. This is a song with independent notability and almost entirely different content from the original lyrically. I have yet to see a good reason why this, specifically, is a good case for a merger. The current policy is Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original, and under that I don't see how it could ever be the correct call to merge here. I would caution the closing editor to discount any arguments that treat the previous, overturned policy as best practice. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As much as I'd love to merge it because it's a bad cover (and I feel some may share my sentiment), it's notable specifically because it's been covered in multiple sources for how bad it is. It's one of the most notable examples of a bad cover in recent years.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 09:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Numerous sources have covered the cover (whether on how bad people seem to think it is or for other reasons). I've also read that the policy for this sort of thing changed last year. It definitely seems notable enough. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 01:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not a cover! Hurt sung by Johnny Cash is a cover. This is a totally different song with completely new lyrics just the same title, tune, and chorus! jengod (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Defined list of events
I went though and outlined a brief summary of the list of events mentioned in the song, in a similar fashion to the page for the original song. Given the non-chronological structure of this version, I didn't try and outline them in chronological order like the first one (there are also many lines left ambiguous to which specific event they're referring) but if people would like that, or some other change, I'd be interested to hear.

Aquova (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the list (and the one at the original song's article) for copyright reasons. It contained most of the song's lyrics (conveniently boldfaced), so an overquote of the lyrics; and it copied all of a list with subjective membership criteria (viz. events since 1989 that Fall Out Boy think are notable), which is copyright violation for the same reason that a copy of a "top 100 films of all time" list is. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:ResolutionsPerMinute Your thoughts? 2600:100C:A112:99FE:F992:40D2:A0A3:1BD4 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this song lies way outside my zone of interest (1988–2014). ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 00:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? 2600:100C:A112:99FE:A1BE:1621:8701:B432 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)