Talk:At Last

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Songs because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove the {{Stubclass}} template from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProjectSongs}} template, removing the {{Stubclass}} template from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] At Last

Regarding the At Last article, the Dion version is neither the most popular nor most notable version of the song. Giving it its own infobox and skimpy paragraph is not necessary and provides a stilted view of the song's history. If you'd like, you could expand on the Etta James version and then add the Dion information in a separate article. Volatile 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

At Last is a part of Celine Dion singles discography. All her singles have their pages with infoboxes. There is no need to remove it here, only because it "provides a stilted view of the song's history." The thing is that Dion has her infobox, but nobody cared enough to make an infobox about Etta James version or other versions. I say that Dion's infobox stays and you can expand Etta James version by adding additional informations. There is no sence to remove Dion's version only because nobody wants to write about the original version. Max24 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NOT. A similar situation happened with Mariah Carey's version of "Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To)." It was not the most notable version of the song, but the Carey fans settled on (after long debate with other editors) a mention in a separate section. Even if I expanded the James version, Dion's version is not notable enough to deserve its own infobox. Volatile 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't have articles about every single ever released; there are notability guidelines. If it weren't for the Etta James version, the Celine Dion version wouldn't warrant a mention. It makes sense, therefore, to keep the information on it in balance with both the better-known versions and its own significance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Volatile, it is notable enough. Max, as per "I'll Be There," "Without You," "Bringing on the Heartbreak," and a host of other songs, you can add an infobox to the "At Last" article for Celine Dion's version if there is sufficient information to place inside it. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dion relased "At Last" as a single in the U.S. and it charted on the Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks. She also performed this song so many times during her 2002 promotion of A New Day Has Come and sang it live for 4 years during her A New Day... show. It's notable enough. And now that Etta James infobox is there, the Dion's infobox isn't a problem anymore.Max24 22:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I disagree, I'm not going to argue over it. The problem with your argument, Orane, is that all of those songs were at least a hit on a main national chart. Dion's version was not. There's no use beating a dead horse, so I'll let it stand for now. Volatile 23:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I, too, disagree. It's very silly to act as if Dion's version is somehow major, or as if an infobox is somehow helping this article. It's basically duplicating the sparse textual information available about her version. I would also not that it was not released as a single in that it was never available for commercial consumption - a promotional single just means it was sent to radio for airplay. Big difference. I, too, won't argue about it, but this quest to insert undue weight of Celine Dion versions into various articles in which her version is actually minor is not actually helpful. GassyGuy 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since 1998 radio singles can enter the U.S. Billboard Hot 100. That's why most of them were released as airplay only. Just like Dion's At Last. So there is nothing strange that it wasn't released commercially. And "Bringing on the Heartbreak" (Carey's version) wasn't "a hit on a main national chart." Max24 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

True that they can enter the Hot 100, but this one didn't, and it still wasn't actually released as a single. And while it has nothing to do with this discussion: 1) Carey's "Bringing on the Heartbreak" was a top 40 hit in Switzerland, which is a nation. 2) Even if it hadn't been a hit on a main national chart, there is considerably more information about her version of that than there is Dion's version of this. GassyGuy 13:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can add more information about Dion version. It's not a problem. By the way, Dion is an artist who performed this song most often. She performed it live for 4 years during her A New Day show. 4 years, 5 days a week. She deserves her infobox. And "Bringing on the Heartbreak" also didn't chart on the Hot 100. Max24 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Charting on the Hot 100 is immaterial. Switzerland is not somehow less notable or worthy than the United States. "She deserves her infobox" - an infobox is not some sort of mark of respect. An infobox is a tool that is supposed to be used to help write encyclopaedic articles. Dion has performed it live - this doesn't surprise me, as it's a very popular number to perform for many vocalists. I'm not saying she should be wiped from the article or something - it should just be proportional representation. GassyGuy 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If every lounge singer and easy listening singer who has covered At Last in the past 40 years had their own infobox, this article would be a megabyte in size. Dion's cover deserves a passing mention and nothing else. James has probably performed the song a lot more than Dion, but that is immaterial. Number of times performed does not have any correlation with notoriety. Please follow consensus, Max24. Wikipedia uses consensus for a reason. Volatile 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment: Let's not get too hasty. I agree that the infobox probably shouldn't be there but to simply state "a passing mention and nothing else" seems pretty harsh for something that may be well documented and well sourced. If it is however lacking sources perhaps the best thing to do is keep the information in this article. What I am saying is that we may have two seperate articles, but since it appears that there may not be enough information to WP:FORK, we're going to have to get along. --CyclePat 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about every artist who covered this song. I'm talking about artists who released "At Last" as a single. Etta James did it, and later Dion. That's why her infobox stays. Max24 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) But there is no rule that every artist to release a certain song as a single must have an infobox. It's supposed to be based on that which is sensible regarding the text or, barring that, community consensus. GassyGuy 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that! --CyclePat 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to GassyGuy. Non-notability still stands. The mention in the current version is sufficient. If you want to create a complete Celine Dion discography, I suggest making your wiki or developing a full fansite. You do not own articles on Wikipedia, please do not act as if you do. Volatile 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree here... think outside the box. I'm sure there is a polite way in doing this. --CyclePat 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with both GassyGuy and Volatile. We shouldn't have an article for every single, much less an infobox, and this is a single that deserves a brief mention at most. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Max24. There is no sufficient reason to exclude the information. It's a matter of taste at this point— whether you are leaning towards being an inclusionist or a deletionist. If Max24 wants to add the information, and is willing and able to do the work himself, and the information is sourced, then there should be no reason for opposing him, and there should be no reason for this commotion (If you ask me, there are things on WP that need far more attention than an additional infobox for a sing-over). And while WP runs on consensus, it also isn't a democracy. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines exist for a reason. The pop culture areas of WP are arguably the least encyclopedic (and least helpful to the average user) due to the glut of non-notable material. Fan websites and wikis already exist to cover this information. Volatile 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)