Talk:All by Myself

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)

All by Myself

Hi,

"All by Myself" is a beautiful 70's song by Eric Carmen. In 1996 it was covered by Celine Dion and included on her very successful 30 million selling album Falling into You. The song itself was also released as a single and became a worldwide hit. It's Dion's signature song and one of her most powerful vocal performances (Grammy Awards of 1997 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)

• 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)

Celine Dion Infobox and why it should be included - PLEASE READ

First of all i realize there is a dispute going in terms of how much information on celine should be included on this song's page. However I Implore you that you should at least keep the infobox. the reasoning is that it is part of an ESTABLISHED practice on wikipedia for ALL major artists as part of the artist' singles chronology. This does not apply to every artist that has covered a song but only to those who have released the song as a commercial single.

It is in fact part of the huge project known as Wikipedia: Songs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs

this is a huge collaborative project with the contribution of countless of people for countless artists across hundreds of articles. and thus if you remove the Celine infobox you are first disrupting the established practice/project as well as totally disrupting her singles chronology (which shows on the page of each of her singles the preceding and following single). This is most definitely NOT a case of myself being biased towards Celine as a celine fan, but it is an established practice. Again I implore you to visit most major artists pages from those who are still popular such as Madonna or Britney Spears or Mariah Carey to those who are even diminished such as Brandy.

If any of these artists relesed cover/makeup songs and even released those songs as singles - then of course their infoboxes are included on that song's page as is the format as dictated on the Wikiproject: Songs page. Again please go to the wikiproject songs page and see for yourself the section for "singles" and see the format they give to add info on commercial singes on that page (I've linked wikiproject songs above)

Again this is not me speaking from a celine fan's biased view as it is an established practice.

I invite you to visit the pages of other major songs recorded and released as singles by other popular artists. Everything from Endless Love (song), Right Here Waiting or How Do I Live among the multitudes. Even a Celine Dion song which has been covered by another artist and RELEASEd as a single has the same separate infobox for that artists' singles chronology (The Prayer (Celine Dion and Andrea Bocelli song). Note that not all artists who covered a song get their own infobox by wiki standards - many artists covered certain extremely popular standards and only get brief mentions on wikipedia - however if you see the common practice on wikipedia, only those who cover the songs AND release them as a commercial single get their own infobox as that covered song has thus become part of their singles chronology.

A clarification: the singles chronology is again usually on the right in the form of an infobox that shows a bit of basic info about that commercial single and links to both the preceding and following single. the point is that you're supposed to follow the links to go across the entire chronology in order of release. this is again, an established project as well as being extremely resourceful and useful. but if you remove the infobox on any one page, it totally disrupts the ENTIRe chronology because someone may be totally stuck when they reach the page in which the infobox has been removed and thus cannot move to the next single. Again, please see wikiproject: songs for more info.

In fact, if anything All by myself would need another infobox for Eric Carmen's version himself that would go before Celine's as it is the original, instead of removing Celine's. But it would only appear as if his fans have not made a singles chronology at all for him yet.

So ultimately if you want to reduce the information on Celine in this specific article - then at least keep the infobox because that IS an established practice on wikipedia as decided by the huge wikipedia: songs project. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

Infobox

Did you even read the page on wikiprojects songs or look at any of the examples I put up? YES there should be an infobox for eric carmen AND it should be first on the page because he recorded it first HOWEVER Celine should also have an infoxbox below it.

You obviously didn't even bother to read all that I wrote (though I know it was excessive) because I had mentioned that according to the project only artists who not only covered the song but released it as a commercial single would have their own infobox (which is why it is part of their singles chronology) which is why Celine's infobox should also be included AFTER Eric' carmen's.

DId frank SInatra release his version as a single? NO! That's why it is NOT part of his singles chronology thus he wouldn't need an infobox for it now would he! But now that you've removed the infobox off this page, people who are on the page of the previous Celine single will be led to this page without a link to the next single. WHich thus makes the singles chronology useless. I cannot make claims for all the artists who covered this song - I don't know if any of them also released it as a commercial single but if they did they do deserve their own infobox as well, but as they don't that just means their fans have not added the information for them, you don't remove valid and relevant information that follows the format=ie removing celine's infobox. Even when you added the infobox for eric carmen you didn't even include his singles chronology - which is plain to see because either his fans don't go on wikipedia or no one's taken the time to make one for him, which you should realize there are tons of other artists who do because their fans make a huge collaborative effort to make their articles more complete and you are simply disrupting it without knowledge of the wider wikiproject: songs rules. you just think i'm an overzealous celine fan but I just want her articles to have as much quality and a singles chronology as other major artists who dont have people coming in taking out parts of their singles chronology and deeming the whole thing useless! Although I extremely doubt most of the artists who covered this song released it as a commercial single, as is the case with most famous cover songs while many people cover it, only a few actually release it as a single! The singles chronology is not a chronology for all of an artists' songs it is a chronology for their commercial singles!!

You did not read or look at the other page examples which clearly show the same format where every artist who has released a commercial single have their own infobox on the page, in order of who recorded it FIRST! I've given you several examples. Here's another one if you're too lazy to look up some songs yourself: The Power of Love (Jennifer Rush song)

Don't you STILL understand how a singles chronology works? On any page of any single that an artist that has released there needs to be a infobox for any artist who released it as a single. Because that serves as a chronology with links to everyy preceding and following commercial single. Any single page that doesn't have the infobox breaks the chronology as the user doesnt have a link to the following single. I didn't mean that every song page needed an infobox! I don't even have to ask, again it's an established practice, which I thought you understood by now how it worked yet you removed the Celine infobox again.

I think it is plain to see that you guys think I'm just a biased Celine fan whose trying to include more info about her on a page for a song that was recorded by another artist FIRST - however you guys are totally ignorant of the established practice on wikipedia for all songs that have been covered as well as singles chronologies in general.

I am in NO WAY tryign to downplay eric carmen who had written and made the song famous. I am simply following the format and making sure Celine's singles chronology is not disrupted! Since she even has a singles chronology to preserve. Of course right now it may seem unfair to eric carmen fans that an article seems to mention more about a cover version than his original - but that's no fault of anyone but the fact that eric carmen's fans obviously haven't added very much extensive information to his page (suchh as a singles chronology) than other major artists out there. And believe me whne I say it isn't just a handful of artists I have listed that I may like or know of, please search for yourself most of the major artists out there and you will see the same format for their singles.

If we just decide to totally exclude Celine's infobox on this page - then there is no point of having a singles chronology for her at all if it's going ot be disrupted and never complete - and thus there should be no singles chronology for anyone? It's called a "SINGLES CHRONOLOGY" for a reason. It's a chronology of commercial singles.

Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Infobox

First, after you look at the format for the singles chronology (it's in the "infobox single" section) on the wikiproject: songs page then you will the format for the singles chronology. Then - as I have said before - please go to the page of any major artist out there (who is relevant/big?) and find a single/song page for them. You will notice the singles chronology usually on the right in the form of an infobox. Actually, it already gives you examples on the section that shows the format for the singles chronology to begin with.

Then you will notice how there are links to every preceding and following commercial single.

You keep on talking about how Celine is only another artist who covered it without realizing that I keep on telling you it's only artists who released the song as a commercial single which is why it's called a SINGLES CHRONOLOGY. it deviates in no way from the singles infobox format offered on the wiki page and established practice on other pages with songs that have been covered ANd released as commercial singles by multiple artists

And of course this ISN'T a fansite but without the fans obviously some pages are more complete and some are totally undeveloped.

INCLUDING on pages where songs have already been covered by multiple artists. Again, as I said - only artists who released a song as a commercial single would get their own infobox - that is why it is called a singles chronology to begin with, it is for singles. Don't you realize that taking the infobox off any page of a commercial single disrupts the entire chronology? And it IS an established practice on wikipedia, you say your personal judgment/opinion on Celine Dion didn't affect your judgment of it but then why can she not have a complete singles chronology like other artists? Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Actually, you make sense now. It actually isn't explicitly stated that it's needed and I suppose users can go to the main album page to see for themselves the other singles. It is based not only on my own desire however but what I saw on other song/artist pages. And so now I'm not so sure what is the "common rule". I hope I don't seem troublesome, but I added a topic to the discussion page of wikiproject: songs to see if they can resolve this issue. Please add anything there if you want yourself too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Please_help_to_resolve_this_dispute

I know I'm being stubborn but whether or not it's explicitly stated shouldn't wikipedia at least be consistent? I've just seen too many cases otherwise (where all artists who released a commercial single get a chronology) that I have to ask again officially to make sure. And to me it's just so useless when it's disrupted, I've been confused more than once when I was on a singles chronology and there was a single in between for which an article was never created, so you had to jump pages, etc. It's just not as fast/resourceful. however some might regard all that info as excessive and bulky, I can see. However, until it is resolved I agree to keep the article as it is now without Celine's infobox.Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually - I've noticed on the discussion page of the wikiproject: songs that there have been discussions on similar issues before (some of the songs listed there are good examples of the format I was referring to being used for multiple artists releasing the same song as a single):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Cover_versions_-_can_we_get_a_consensus_on_this.3F

Though I'm still not sure what the general concensus on this issue is.Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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:WAX applies to the "1000s" of other articles (hyperbole being your strong point eh?). A small paragraph of information about Dion's cover of the song does not make the article "untrue". It just makes it concise, as good articles should be. Quit with the BS about 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)

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

• 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)

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 directly requires an infobox for each commercially released cover of a song; however, it does explicitly call for a chronology section that links to the artists' previous and next "official singles". If an artist has an "official single" that is a cover of an existing song and if the page for that song has no infobox for that artists' recording of it, then the chronology (a very useful navigational aid) will be broken. That is, any attempt to navigate through the artists' catalog of singles will fail as soon as the reader hits that song. Let me ask you outright: what is the purpose of including chronology links (as is recommended by the 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 Cover version article have multiple infoboxes (for example, Jambalaya (On the Bayou), Light My Fire, and Everlasting Love). Even the WP:SONGS guidelines offers Layla, which includes multiple infoboxes, as a 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)

• 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)

• I don't agree with the suggestion to place a Single infobox on the article for the album or the artist's discography. WP:ALBUMS discusses at length the use of the Album infobox but makes absolutely no mention of including a Single infobox in an album article. And, of course, WP:SONGS describes the Single infobox as one of three possible infoboxes for song articles. And I have never seen your suggestion in practice before. Have you? I would suggest that this misunderstanding stems from a difference in definitions. It seems almost assumed that a single is a categorization of a song (single extends song, if you like), but that's not true. Single categorizes a recording, and a song may have several recordings (of course, all but the first are covers). In light of the fact that the infobox actually describes a recording, not a song, it seems reasonable that a song's article may have more than a single infobox, assuming there are several notable recordings. Again, note that Layla, which has two infoboxes, is offered as a model article. Fabtasticfoo (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• • 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)

• 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. --134.117.151.251 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)