Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions

Listed on RFC on at this time and date: 16:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is for the purpose of discussing the proper placement in music articles for song cover versions and to gather consensus for an official guideline pertaining to this subject. Most song articles in Wikipedia contain more than one (or all) version(s) of a popular song, with the inclusion of multiple infoboxes and chart information, if the cover is equally or more popular/notable than the original. Recently there have been several articles from which a cover version was spun off into its own page, which has brought attention to the fact that no official consensus, policy or guideline exists regarding where cover versions should go. Discussions about cover versions have occurred on several article Talk Pages, but this page will serve as a centralized discussion on the matter.

Some arguments supporting keeping covers merged with original versions include the preference to keep song articles about songs as opposed to singles, i.e. an artist's decision to cover a popular tune is part of the history of the song, therefore this information belongs in the article. The combination and or appearance of multiple infoboxes and chart information can be arranged neatly and cleanly without cluttering up the article.

Arguments for splitting or spinning off cover versions include the dislike of stacked (multiple) infoboxes and chart/track list information, causing a cluttered or sloppy appearance. Some pages cause issues in which a cover version may overtake an original in notability (or not even come close to cultural significance of the original) which in turn could lead to lopsided articles where one version's section is much longer and more detailed than the other.

No doubt there are many more points to bring up here, so let's have at it. - eo (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey
This is not a vote. Please explain opinions.


 * Keep merged - I'd like to keep things merged, for reasons stated above. There are many more than these, but I think the following are good examples of articles in which multiple versions of popular songs work well: I Love Rock 'n' Roll, Venus (Shocking Blue song), I Think We're Alone Now, You Keep Me Hangin' On, You Can't Hurry Love, It's My Life (Talk Talk song), Always on My Mind, Dear Prudence, Walk This Way. - eo (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow Split as an option, on certain conditions. The split should leave two articles that pass WP:N, of course. EO summarized some of the issues very well--that a newer version, if it charts or if there is more such information available, would overwhelm the earlier one, for instance. I myself am less focused on the "single" aspect; that is, whether some original version was released as a single and thereby gained notability is not my primary interest. Having said that, the "Venus" article, for instance, I can find nothing wrong with that. EO and I butted heads over Only Love Can Break Your Heart, and that's still not a great article, in part because I couldn't find that much information to beef up the Young section, so to speak, and thus the article, in my opinion, has too much information on Saint Etienne and charts and Billboard and all the things that, ahem, I don't like about the music industry. And I am perfectly aware that that doesn't make for good policy, and that my preferred focus on the song suggests merging. My real preferred focus, I guess, is song by Neil Young or whoever may be the writer of the original, and that, in my opinion, suggests splitting. A good example, I think, is Higher Ground (song), where the discussion is raging again--in my opinion, two articles is fine. Hmm. As you can see, I am not quite sure, and while I thank EO for graciously inviting me here, I don't know if I have much of certainty to contribute--I do look forward to reading a few more opinions. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge. If the article is called "song" then it would be logical to find all information about that song in the same article, rather than dissecting the information over 2 or more articles - much of what would be repetition anyway. There are no other articles in any other area of WP that I can think of that are split like this, save those split because of size. So there is a whole precedent already existing in Wikipedia already for keeping together. I think we need to be thinking what is beneficial to the reader and WP generally - not what the fan of XXX performer wants. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Rich, first of all I hope you noticed my "ahem" and my obvious reference to an invalid argument, all of which was to indicate that I haven't chiseled my opinions in stone. Now, as for precedent, lots of other things simply don't work like songs--one can't simply "cover" a poem. But there is precedent of sorts in novels and plays--see, for instance, Dracula (disambiguation), and while it's easy to say that "every movie is essentially different from the novel" (in the case of Dracula) it isn't always true that it is, and the same applies to songs and their covers. The one Higher Ground is pretty much like the other, but Young's Only Love Can Break Your Heart is not like Saint Etienne's. So I beg to differ on the precedent point, and could add Faust (disambiguation) to the list, which lists subjects based on the same legend and many on the same play (by Goethe or by Marlowe, to complicate matters--and would you merge them under Goethe or Marlowe? what if, like Faust (1994 film), they use both?); or Henry V (play)/Henry V (1944 film)/Henry V (1989 film), one play and two very different movies that somewhat faithfully follow the original text but warrant their individual articles. Why should "covers" be treated differently from "other movie versions"? In many ways, those are "covers" too. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, too and I did spot it. Firstly I knew somebody would prove my assumptions wrong, and secondly I knew somebody would bring up films! Films may be based on the same story, but that is from a 4/5 page synopsis, generally with different script, actors, settings, production team, different internal storylines, many times the film and book ending will be different, and conclusively, each film will have a separate copyright because it is intrinsically different. Whereas, and taking your earlier example of Only Love Can Break Your Heart, whoever records the song, Neil Young will always be the writer, the words and melody will always be the same and Neil Young will always retain the songwriting credit and will earn money whoever records the song! To separate makes the performer more important than the song (fancruft in its extreme in my opinion) - in which case you might as well merge each song back with the performer of the song. So many of the articles we are discussing will never progress beyond a simple "this recording of this song exists," generally not referenced or very poorly referenced with little chance of becoming a worthwhile article - at least with merging we actually have a chance of some of these articles becoming worthwhile.


 * PS (added later). You wouldn't separate classical music by performer irrespective of performance differences why should popular music be any different? For example, see St Matthew Passion (Bach) --Richhoncho (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Split only when it passes WP:NOTABILITY for example the Madonna version of the song Love Don't Live Here Anymore and Leona Lewis' version of Run (song) both have enough notability to warranty separate articles. This is my opinion. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep merged, generally speaking. The only way I can see a fork happening is if there are two versions with high, generally equivalent notability with enough differences (and sourced content) to warrant separate articles.  In the film example above, I agree with the fact that generally speaking, only the basic content of the film remains the same, with most of the other elements quite different.  In a song, there are more similarities, generally speaking.  Yes, there are examples when a song changes fairly drastically (I think Jessica Simpson's version of "These Boots Were Made for Walking" or whatever is a recent example), but that's not necessarily enough to warrant a separate article in and of itself.  As for a song like "Run", a lot of discussion was based around how differently Leona Lewis interpreted the song, so again, a single page would better serve the reader, disregarding the "uglyness" of multiple infoboxes.  I guess an example would be "Candle in the Wind", with both the old and new versions being highly notable, with a fair of amount of differences between the two and different information for each article.  (I note, though, that both articles are poorly sourced, and wonder if perhaps both versions could fit onto a single page.)  Like honestly, it's hard to say, because who knows where to draw the line? SKS (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The ugliness of multiple infoboxes shouldn't arise providing there is enough text regarding each version of the song. If there isn't enough text then there really isn't enough information for a separate article in the first place. Also perhaps, as an aside, we could have a special infobox that allows for different versions in one box? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep merged - As above, I do feel that we are logically providing information about a song. That is irrespective of the differences in versions, which can be quite diverse but, more often than not, are quite subtle.  Either way, surely a reader of an encyclopedia would expect to see one article about each subject matter - not multiple versions that will be repetitive in many aspects.  My biggest concern is that, rather like the committee that is charged with designing a horse; yet by consensus, broad agreement and fudge actually comes up with a camel. For my money it should be the one article, without some of the potential 'exceptions to the rule' mentioned above.  Otherwise, I feel that editors will spend more time trying to understand and interpret the various guidelines, rather than attempting to improve what are, in far too many instances, poor articles. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be merged - The benefits of having one page far outweight the harm. The reasons people list for wanting separate pages are mostly cosmetic and stylistic, while the reasons for having the pages merged are practical: (1) it means that a huge mess of links does not have to be kept up to date between the different versions of the songs, (2) it makes it unlikely for a fixed error in one page to not be fixed in another, (3) it allows for a unifying perspective of the song to exist (see All Along The Watchtower), (4) it keeps all the information in one place, which means less clicking/searching on the user's part. As has been pointed out, the articles are typically about the SONG, not about the performance. Performances are subsections of information about a song. Luminifer (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I would say that in more minor cases, the most recognised version of the song should be at the top of the article - eg. Nothing Compares 2 U - it seems the lesser versions have an infobox just to give the more regognised version one - so these wouldn't be necessary (unless for reasons of continuity). I would say basically there should be a split if two different versions had very long articles - in the same way that anything on a page would be split off into another article, but with the title changed to Nothing Compares 2 U (Sinead O Connor version) rather than (Sinead O Connor song) for example. I would say keep as a merge as a rule, but common sense should come into play when needed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Merged in virtually all cases. It's a single subject and ideally should be presented as such. The only case I would support splitting is one in which space considerations (and remember, WP:NOTPAPER, even though we all routinely forget) become overwhelming, in which case individual versions could be split out as subarticles, with a summary on the main article page. Chubbles (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow for split - I'm glad Legolas used the Madonna example. There are instances when covers become as notable or as, if not more, significant as the original. Then there are times when the cultural importance or impact of a song, such as "American Pie" or "Candle in the Wind 1997", warrants its own article without what can be rapidly growing content of cover versions. When a cover gains prominence on charts and its content overwhelms the original, there should be the possibility of the cover having a split article with an adequate summary in the original song article. In the majority of cases, this should not be an issue, but there needs to be allowance for exceptions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep merged First, I don't believe multiple infoboxes clutter up a page. I find them quite beneficial; however, there's no need to include the song writer, which is going to be the same, in each one. What I'd like to see, to keep size down, is little or no emphasis on all the different track listings (every country, every format, every remix). For example, Perfect Day (Duran Duran song) is a perfect candidate to merging into the Perfect Day article, and would still be reasonable size if the track listing section were removed. Debates about coverage on one version over another should not be a consideration, because it's all about sources. A song originally recorded in 1975 may be the "definitive" version, more significant or more popular, but a cover recorded in 1995 may have more sourceable information attached to it just due to the availability of that info. Again, I'd avoid overly long track listing sections. With that said, I am not totally opposed to separate articles, if both versions are equally notable and the size of a single article would be overly large. This should be only done by consensus, however. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Split only for the famous covers. For example, Jennifer Rush' "The Power of Love"; the cover by Celine Dion is as notable as the original, or Cher's version of Bob Dylan's "All I Really Want to Do". Other songs like "A Little Less Conversation" should be kept as they are. Alecsdaniel (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Define famous? The Rush and Dylan versions are the more famous in my little world. Another editor wants "American Pie" split because the Madonna version overwhelms the McLean original. None of the 3 songs are worthy enough of splitting in my opinion. It should also be remembered that already known songs are are recorded and released as singles because there is an inherent notability - a straight commercial decision! I fully accept there will be exceptions, but I do think we need to define what constitutes an exception, otherwise every fan will think their particular favourite will be the exception, it becomes original research and POV and a coach and horses will be driven through the proposed guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Famous as in if the cover is something close to a key moment in one artist history. Cher's cover was her first solo single, so that's notable enoguh, and Dion's version was her trademark song until "My Heart Will Go On". Songs like "These Boots Are Made for Walking", "Fever", "Billie Jean", "I Will Survive" or "Sweet Dreams" shouldn't be split as the other versions aren't as notable as the first one, while "I Will Always Love You" (Houston), "Without You" (Carey), "American Pie" (Madonna), "Proud Mary" (Ike & Tina), can have their own separate page. I partially agree with Zephyrnthesky and that infobox, but if the articles will be splited, instead of redirecting to the artist's page, their name will send to the cover's page, like Madonna. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's two issues here which muddies the waters. There is the notability of the song and the notability of the song in relation to the artist. If there is significant importance in relationship to the artist then surely that information belongs on the either the artist or perhaps the relevant album page of the artist? In all the examples you have given above it is still the same song. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, kinda. But notice the very big differences - "American Pie" by Mclean is a folk song, about 8 minutes long or so, while Madonna's "American Pie" is a dance pop song, about 4 minutes long. Different ages, different videos, different charts succes, the same writer. Alecsdaniel (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By separating American Pie you are de-emphasising the differences in arrangement. Whereas I would doubly emphasis the difference in the lead and keep both versions in one article. I think that size and only size can be a reason for separating articles, but I hope those that are advocating "certain" songs to be split for other reasons can make some suggestions regarding what conditions an article can be split, otherwise we might as well say all songs can be split by version because that's how everybody will interpret the guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Any situation in which there would be multiple articles about a single song, the disambiguation convention should be "version", or something other than "song" - so that it is clear that it is one song with several articles about it. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep merged Cover versions are a part of the song's history. There would need to be substantial repetition if articles are split, such as its conception and writing. If the lead is adequate then there shouldn't be a problem for the reader. The JPS talk to me  15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep merged. This is an interesting discussion, and it's a bit surprising this hasn't been turned into a policy on here yet. I can think of a bunch of "but what about...?" exceptions if the door is opened to allow cover versions their own pages (can you imagine "Yesterday"?) I'm inclined to think the song is most important, and even in most of the examples listed above I'd be hard pressed to justify multiple spin-off pages for the same song, even if it sounds different. This despite the fact that having a big stack of infoboxes that extend well beyond everything editors have been able to come up with in text is pretty unsightly. INFOBOX/SONG has a field for Artist and then another for AltArtist which lists additional performers in the box under the heading "Cover versions", which I think looks pretty good (an example is on the page "I Dreamed a Dream"). Maybe deciding to use that box instead of stacking them would look better, and using the chronologically first notable version of the song as the main artist. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think "The Power of Love" is a good example of why things should stay merged. Here is a song that clearly is notable for multiple versions, but which one depends on the reader's geographic location.  Jennifer Rush's original was massive in Europe but basically flopped in the U.S. (even Laura Branigan's version did better here).  Most Americans remember TPOL from Celine Dion without any knowledge of Rush's original.  The fact that these three women had major success with it in various world regions is an interesting part of the song's history.  The same can be said for "Billy Don't Be a Hero" - eo (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's without mentioning that Rush has a co-writing credit for TPOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, eo. "Our Lips Are Sealed" is another example where the version of the song that is most familiar is probably based on geography (I'm sure there are others), and that aspect of the song's history or appeal gets lost if you have to flip from one page to another. Or else it's just the same info copied and reversed onto different pages. Both John Michael Montgomery and All-4-One had hit versions of the song "I Swear" in the same year in the U.S., it just depends on whether you listen to more country or R&B/pop as to who is associated with that one. But it's still the same song. As to the infoboxes, I just threw the possibility of using 'song' instead of 'single' out there because it's more condensed (and looks neater to me), as far as I'm concerned the world won't come to an end if every notable version doesn't have its own infobox, but that a relatively minor quibble. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep merged. I agree that the articles should be about songs, not versions. And if several versions all charted at the same time, like Again, which is a cover? They are all equally important and should be dealt with together. -- BRG (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: In many cases there are non-notable versions as well as notable ones. I believe that while the non-notable versions should at least be listed, Wikipedia's notability guidelines would make this impossible if there were separate articles for different versions. So I am even more inclined to plump for single articles on all versions of a song than I was when I made my first post. -- BRG (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep merged. Most versions don't have enough information to sustain its own article. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't see a reason to split a cover, not even if the cover is wildly different from the original (e.g. Garth Brooks' cover of "Fever", which is almost a total rewrite). I have yet to see a song article so long as to require splitting into individual sections for each cover version, and I don't think it'll ever happen. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A simple criterion should be the writer(s) credited. If a song has the same credits, it's the same song and should be merged.  Songs such as Bitter Sweet Symphony and U Can't Touch This have the covering artist listed as co-writers; therefore they deserve their own page. -- Ulmanor (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Merged in the vast majority of cases, though I could see where there might be a few rare cases where a cover version might merit its own article. It should also be clarified that if a cover is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia (and isn't one of those aforementioned rare exceptions) then it can and should be covered in the article about the song.  I say that because I've seen instances where someone tried to remove sections/infoboxes relating to cover versions of a song either because they disliked the cover or wanted to keep it limited in scope to the original version of the song.  Examples of this are The Cheetah Girls cover of Route 66 (song), Crazy Frog's version of Popcorn (instrumental), and Fatboy Slim's cover of The Joker (song).  --mwalimu59 (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I wasn't going to comment here, being more of a WP:ALBUM person myself, but I do welcome a proper discussion and consensus building exercise on this. My thoughts have always been why shouldn’t we have separate articles for the different covers as long as they are notable – a probable qualifier of this could be whether it was released as a single? We are not a paper encyclopedia after all, and also a cluttered, messy article does nothing to help people navigate through an artist’s discography in a fluid way. If you then want to investigate the origins of the song, we have wikilinks to facilitate this, don’t we? Anyway, the main reason I have come here is, as I say, to welcome an actual concrete consensus especially as I have spent the last two years fuddling over this article, which has today again been merged (without recent discussion or current consensus). The sticking point with the case in question has always been that singles as an entity have always been ignored as a format which should be treated like an EP or an LP in some instances – but anyway, that’s another argument and one that’s not likely to ever be solved any time soon. I watch with vague interest. – B.hotep •talk• 08:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to comment: I think one of the problems is that the status of covers is different in different eras. In the 1940s-1950s era which interests me, it was as a matter of course expected that songs would be covered; all the record companies would issue a version. In later days, songs became more clearly associted with their singers, who often wrote them, so a cover became a rare thing.Since we are looking at them from different perspectives, no wonder we have different attitudes. -- BRG (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to response to comment - this is actually a very good point to bring up. Many moons ago the recording industry was a songwriters' game, not a singer's or a performer's.  Lots of "classics" were written by songwriters under contract then distributed to several different singers to record.  Many times multiple versions of the same song would chart simultaneously.  I would not recommend separate articles for every notable version. - eo (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further response to comment. I agree with the 2 comments above wholeheartedly. The one proviso is that we should be looking for solutions that are suitable for all eras and genres of music. Having said that I find Fever (Madonna song) a useless title. Can any song belong to a single singer? I dislike "Cover version" for all the reasons already opined. So although I was lukewarm earlier I do think that Fever (1956 song) is about as good as it can get. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not convinced we need another guideline. A major concern with this proposal is that many articles that appear to be about 'songs' are actually about singles, i.e. a physical release with B-sides, etc. Each case needs to be considered separately, which is always the case I know (sadly, too many editors don't), but I'm not convinced we have a problem here that requires a guideline to solve it.--Michig (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Which came first? The song or the single? Still seems logical to keep all the information about the song together.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is a good point - but actually, in cases where the song is notable and the single is also notable (or MULTIPLE singles are notable), then there should be multiple pages. One for (song), and maybe multiple for (single). The former would deal only with information about the song, while the latter would deal only with charting information, etc. Luminifer (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Split While I certainly would not argue that every cover song needs its own page, many covers are so popular that they warrant their own page. In some cases, the pages would become too large if all information were to be merged. An argument for removing information can be made, but I feel that's unfair that useful information has to be removed from a page so it's not so cumbersome. Basically, if there's just a little bit of information on the cover, then it should stay merged with the original. But in some cases where the song has become a hit or popular/infamous in other ways, it needs its own page. KhanadaRhodes (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep merged in the most of cases but split when the article is too long and the cover version is a smash hit, with enough material. Also as per Mwalimu59. Europe22 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow for split based on notability and space concerns. No covers of "Under the Bridge" are worth noting in detail in separate pages, but both Otis Redding and Aretha Franklin's verions of "Respect" require full in-depth articles due to the high amount of source material available on both. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow for split. While most cover versions are unnotable on their own, there are some versions that do achieve distinction from the original or other versions. To be clear, the default option should be to keep merged, but that must not be a mindless, pre-emptive prescription. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * MERGE I was brought here by the song Me and Mrs. Jones. My opinion is that there should be only one page devoted to a particular song: creation and covers. If a particular cover is notable, then it should appear into a section of the article devoted to the artist (or group) or its discography. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a promotional vehicle. --Jazzeur (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge All arguments mentioned already. I agree with Jazzerur. E.
 * Allow Split I am in favour of keeping them merged, but I'm not convinced it's possible or readable in all cases. One example is Don't cry for me Argentina that has around 26 cover versions listed. But then the Madonna version takes up half of the article space due to track listings, etc. If it is decided to keep the articles merged then we should consider removing track listings from song articles. They're not really relevant in that scope and for multiple covers will definitely create clutter. Agentchuck (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Split - Merge articles look really shabby and encyclopedic. There is no limit to space so once a second version of a song becomes notable a split seems in order. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MERGE Keep the current system as is. Far easier to find songs under one title. Space is not a concern as wikipedia is not paper, WP:NOTPAPER. PaulHammond2 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep merged but allow for a split in the cases of long articles or cover versions that are substantially different from the original, such as a mashup. I am undecided on an artist's cover versions of their own songs, i.e. remixes. Cover versions provide the history of the song's evolution, and thus contribute to the completeness of the article. If a long article has many cover versions by notable artists, create a "List of cover versions of so-and-so song" list. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with information on the original songwriter and artist at the top. Notability of a certain cover is subjective to change according to region and the passing of time. I agree with Agentchuck that track listings should be removed (I'm not really sure what purpose they serve here). Most covers are significant only in relation to the original song or the cover artists and do not have enough material for a separate article, since most of it will be the track listing. Raisin56 (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge all information on the same song in one article without track listings (that could eventually be referenced to another website better devoted to completists), and a "list of cover versions". Information on special editions ("Perfect Day" - Reed's comment; "Nothing Compares 2 U" - song made famous in its cover version rather than original) could have a separate paragraph. I agree totally on last 2 paragraphs, and with PaulHammond2, and Jazzeur. Infobox should be kept at a minimum; stacks are ok (in that information is more complete and searchable and visible at a glance). --David Be (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples of articles to be merged/split
I am pleased this debate is becoming live again. I hope a conclusion can be made. I note although the majority have been in favour of keeping merged some have said “separate in special circumstances.” I note a number of articles (all of which link back to this discussion) where there is a discussion regarding merging/splitting. Perhaps this list can be used to help us find a way forward.

--Richhoncho (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More here: User:GassyGuy/Multiversions - I worked on this list with several other editors quite a while back (the original editor has since retired from WP). Some of the items now crossed-off may have been re-split since.  This particular page hasn't been updated since March 2008, but I'm sure a number of these can be added to Richhoncho's table. - eo (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to eo I have added a further 5 entries, the rest of list supplied by him have already been merged.


 * Adding a few more duplicate articles I have found on my travels :-

Richhoncho (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples of articles that have already been merged
There have been a number of articles already merged, which had been noted as potential merges, with a link to this page. As a matter of completeness I thought it best to list them here.

To my way of thinking, irrrespective of any consent or non-consent reached here it is already the policy to merge different articles about the same song. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Optional template for new proposals
===Descriptive title here=== --~

Reasons for creating a cover fork article

 * Valid reasons to fork a song cover


 * Invalid reasons to fork a song cover

Keep merged, with very rare exceptions per WP:SUMMARY only
I favor comprehensive treatment of a song within one article, which is currently common practice on Wikipedia (see Ericorbit's examples above, and here's more "Baby, Please Don't Go", "Light My Fire", "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)", "Unchained Melody", "Popcorn"). I think there can reasonably be exceptions, but these should be very, very rare. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for creating a cover fork article

 * Valid reasons to fork a song cover
 * WP:SUMMARY (with consideration for WP:AVOIDSPLIT). Article length should exceed 45kb (my rough guess&mdash;is there a better way to draw this line?), not counting pro forma elements such as track listings and succession boxes, before forking is considered. WP:LENGTH does not give specific quantitative recommendations, but an article under 25kb will rarely reach WP:GA status, and 45kb seems to be the usual point where a split is recommended. Very few song article exceed 45kb, especially when pro forma elements are excluded. The cover fork article must satisfy general notability and other requirements on its own.


 * Invalid reasons to fork a song cover
 * Important artist deserves to be at article top
 * Cover sold more copies than the original
 * Article "looks ugly" with multiple infoboxes
 * To aid orderly progressive navigation via succession boxes.

It is my expectation that very few song articles merit a cover fork, probably less than ten on all of Wikipedia, perhaps none.

Recommended form for cover fork articles

 * Cover forks should be title disambiguated as Title (Artist cover), rather than Title (Artist song)
 * The first sentence of a cover fork article should prominently link back to the main article.
 * Information on the cover should never be expunged from the main article. Some trimming for overall article length is acceptable in the service of WP:SUMMARY

Contraindications for creating cover fork articles
The following strongly indicate a cover fork article should not be created:
 * If fork article is a stub, there is sufficient room in the main article.
 * general notability guidelines must be applicable to the forked article; notability is not inherited from the main article.
 * Most song articles on Wikipedia are quite short. While there is no fixed guideline for length, an article under 30-45kb (not including pro format elements such as track listings and succession boxes) should probably not be forked.

Comments
I would appreciate feedback on this. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please move this if I have put this in the wrong place. I'd like to make a couple of suggestions to amend above. One is the suggestion is that we don't use song title (artist cover), because of the association with the term "cover band" which can mean a band that plays the music in the style of the original and can have derogatory connotations. I agree it shouldn't be Song title (artist song) because that signifies ownership and would mean different things in different eras. FWIW I also dislike Category:Foo songs for exactly the same reasons. I am not sure what to offer in it's place, but words like "version" or "recording" would be clearer. I wouldn't want to see the word "single" now we are in the digital age. The second point is that perhaps we should should also establish that merged articles should be chronological order much as other articles are done, prime facts and versions at the top of the article, then notabable versions in date order with "other recordings" last. Having this as a policy will avoid "my-band's-bigger-than-your-band" disputes. Thirdly, although not strictly speaking within the remit of this discussion a song can be released as a single in various years, but it can only be categorised as Category:Year song once. As we cannot always verify the date a song was written or recorded, this date should be the date of first release only.
 * This is a comment that I feel pretty strongly about, and I've been trying very hard to get discussed. I believe that Song title (artist song) is a TERRIBLE way of disambiguating, because in the era I'm most interested in (the late 1940s and early 1950s) many, many songs were recorded by multiple artists and often several versions charted. I have tended to favor Song title (year-of-publication song) and this I think is the best, because it is unambiguous (some who prefer using the songwriters may not understand my problem with this, but how do you decide what order to put the writers' names in?) -- BRG (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this issue needs a concensus too and I'm glad you put your suggestion in. I really don't know what the solution is, your suggestion is good, but I can see times when it would be confusing, for instance when a current artist covers a really old song, the date could be confusing to the casual reader if not for you and me. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also placed a note regarding this discussion on any song articles that are sugject to a merge tag at the moment and anybody on my talk page that has shown an interest in songs generally. Obviously only canvassing opinions and not support! --Richhoncho (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)--Richhoncho (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comment. Looking at the comments from those opposing merging I think we should make it clear that this is NOT a discussion that suggests changes in the standards for notability of songs, but a discussion regarding where notable recordings should be placed. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cover versions guideline
A guideline for how to deal with cover versions would be helpful. As well as some awareness as to when an article is about a song, and when it is a about a performance, and when it is about both the song and performance. Looking at the discussion above, a number of people are conflating the song with the performance. That would be like conflating all the Beatles songs with The Beatles themselves, and saying that all the Beatles songs should be dealt with in The Beatles article. Performers are different to their songs, and the performance of a song is different to the song itself.

Not all cover versions should have their own article. But neither should all cover versions be placed in the same article as the original version. If a performance/recording is notable enough to have a stand alone article then under our present guidelines we WP:Split out in WP:Summary style.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT "If a performance/recording is notable enough to have a stand alone article" then it should.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with SilkTork -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. -- Europe22 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (qualified below). Rothorpe (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Save when WP:Split applies and I further comment

Come on, guys, nobody is saying a cover version is less important, nobody is suggesting that cover versions would or should have less information, this is purely about how WP presents the whole - and the whole in this instance is the song. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Like most song articles one of the above opens up, ""Breakin'... There's No Stopping Us" is a dance-pop song.... Again confirming it is about a SONG, not a performance, not a recording, not an artist and not about chart placing.
 * 2) As the article Song says "A song is a metrical composition intended or adapted for singing, especially one in rhymed stanzas; a lyric; a ballad." It is therefore the song that is notable, it is NOT directly about writer, performer or arrangement  although any one of these may be associated with the song,
 * 3) What is it with editors assuming that readers are not interested in the full history of the song that cover versions have to be separated? Are we assuming that readers interested in the song are ONLY interested to read the bit they already know (ie the artist they have heard of) and NOTHING else! Or is it assumed that we have to protect readers from the full facts?
 * 4) Why must we suffer the indignity of such misnamed articles as Feeling Good (Michael Bublé song), Fever (Madonna song), White Lines (Duran Duran song), Mamma Mia (A*Teens) etc. when the song is patently  a recording and no ownership can be implied.
 * 5) It should also be noted that a number of the articles noted above have already been merged/deleted. So irrespective of any opinion voiced here the practice is already to merge cover versions.
 * 6) Chart placing is one of the ways WP discerns whether a song is notable, it is not pertinent fact and cannot be used to support separation of alternative recordings.
 * 7) It should be remembered that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a music encyclopedia.
 * 8) The merging of song articles was effectively policy before this discussion page was instigated and the creation of a new subsection at the bottom of this page as a way of making it look like there is more support for separating cover versions simply doesn't work.


 * Richhoncho's reminder of "the indignity of such misnamed articles as Feeling Good (Michael Bublé song), Fever (Madonna song)..." is enough to make me think again. To keep articles short and wieldy, I still favour separate articles for some covers, ad hoc, but let's indeed call them '(Xxxx version)', not '(Xxxx song)'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask a couple of questions? Am I right in assuming that you are proposing separation at a level less than prescribed in WP:SPLIT? How would you define those songs which can be split and those that can't (you use the word "ad hoc")? If I wanted separate articles I would take that to mean when *I* wanted to separate I could because it means "all articles can be separated".--Richhoncho (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Song articles that list all versions, concentrating on the first version, except where the cover version is the hit (e.g, Sloopy). If an editor creates an article about a cover version, that is OK, provided it is detailed enough. This is the ad hoc bit of course: a stub of a cover version is likely to be speedily deleted. But yes, if you want to create it, you can give it a try; that doesn't change the content of the original article, apart from a link. Rothorpe (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But surely that way creates one hell of an administration problem? You have opened the door for every cover that is notable (notwithstanding most people don't understand WP:NSONG) to have a separate article and then editors have to debate, argue and merge when appropriate. In reality no article starts as "stand alone" so they would always mergeable. Whereas if we say "there should only be one article per song, but may be split subject to either a) a discussion or b) in accordance with WP:SPLIT we make life much easier. I acccept that some song articles may be split, but I haven't seen an example yet that meets my criteria. It is my profound view that those that oppose merging are not actually interested in the song, but the artist who they want to "big up." --Richhoncho (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly don't want to encourage that. But you say: "You have opened the door for every cover that is notable". Well, if it's notable, by definition it should have an article. But I don't think there are too many covers that are. Rothorpe (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Notable to the editor creating the article, not necessarily passing WP:NSONG in the first place. Also although covers are fairly rare these days, up to the 60s (The Beatles) they were fairly commonplace, sometimes with two different versions charting at the same time. Fortunately the guys creating those articles are only creating one article. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we are really in disagreement here. You say: 'Whereas if we say "there should only be one article per song, but may be split subject to either a) a discussion or b) in accordance with WP:SPLIT we make life much easier."' That's not significantly different from my position. If there is consensus, there is an article, not otherwise. (Not that that will stop any of those who haven't read WP:SPLIT creating superfluous cover-version articles.) And, yes, I too remember when a "cover version" was something different from a "revival". But I'm not about to make an article out of Craig Douglas's two versions of "A Hundred Pounds of Clay"... Rothorpe (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, if its the same song they belong in the same article, imo most arguments for a split is so that fans for a particular version can have their own article.KTo288 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)