This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
The section on "song Meaning" has been readded to the article, after being removed for being original research. While it does appear to be a literal description of what the song appears to say, can we be certain it's not metaphoric in any way? Without a reliable source, it still seems like original research to me to definitively say what the song means. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being at 167th place on the 500 greatest songs I think it might be the 1st song on the list that was written exclusively by a woman. It looks like earlier songs that have female singers were either written by a male or were co-written with with a male. Please correct me if I'm wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.134.134 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing discussion, restoring merged version: only the "Support" votes have support in WP:NSONGS, which indicates that multiple covers of the same song are covered in the same article. Opposes are cherry-picking, ignoring the clear guidance which was placed into the guideline the last time an editor tried to claim that some covers were special.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:NSONGS also says, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." Is there any reason this particular cover version is more important than every other cover version, for instance, Make You Feel My Love, which has 3 notable cover versions? At what point is the artist more important than the song in a song article? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, maybe. But not always. I think this is notable in its own right. It is a very different genre. It charted at number-one in several countries. It was a number-one début single. AusLondonder (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying this different version of the same song should be different page because the singer is different and it's a different arrangement. What makes that different from every other merged song article? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is absolutely the same song, Same lyrics, same music. No need whatsoever for a separate page for Jonas Blue so-called "song". Fast Car (Jonas Blue song) should just be a redirect to the main page forwarding to a specific section "Jonas Blue version" on "Fast Car" page, exactly as it was before this unorthodox and very subjective treatment of this particular version. A version becomes a new song when the lyrics are changed considerably or an artist samples a song to be used in another independent song. The sooner this page is merged to the main page as per our policies, the better. Thanks also for colleague Richhoncho in quoting the correct WP:NSONGS policy which applied in this case. werldwayd (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. I have now reverted the removal of the JB version material and set a redirect up at the JB page. I did this also on the grounds that Auslondonder did not offer any valid argument to keep separate. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There is a guideline which you are ignoring, refusing to repute. Again if you cannot understand the difference between "song" and "recording" By all mean discuss, but the status quo is one article for one song!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion has been effectively made redundant. The proponent overturned the discussion after one day (what is the rush???) and performed the merge three times. AusLondonder (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for oppose We are hearing a lot about WP:NSONGS here. This single is independent notable. NSONGS states that "singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". This is clearly the case. Jonas Blue's version has received coverage at Music Radar, the Western Morning News, Purple Revolver, Noise11, Music World and coverage in German and Italian. This would suggest meeting WP:GNG. In addition to this, NSONGS states that singles that ranking on a national music chart suggests independent notability. The trump card being used by those favouring a merge is one line which states "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions". This is an absurdly rigid interpretation of a single line of policy. Such a rigid, no-negotiation interpretation of a single line in a broader policy is blatantly contrary to every principle of WP:NOTBUROAusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge as long as every single bit of the material is retained. Meets WP:NSONGS, charting in 20 countries that we know of so far, including nine #1 or #2 spots, so in the merge all the information, charts, and certifications should be retained. NOTE: I think the only way I would be convinced that a merge is not appropriate is if we found a decent precedent where a cover has its own stable article. (If that happens, ping me.) Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the current version of Fast Talk appears oriented towards the recent Jonas Blue version of the Tracy Chapman song, with mention of various other notable remakes.
Unfortunately, the article offers no historical context for the song itself, in terms of its original writer, performer, potential song meaning (per the writer), etc. I created a Wikipedia account specifically because this article was rather confusing in these glaring omissions, wondering if the "merge" mentioned above somehow erased these seemingly necessary aspects of the song's history, so I felt it important to call this out.
Per the Wayback Machine, it appears that this article once included the pertinent song history and then mentioned the Jonas Blue (and other) version(s): http://web.archive.org/web/20160415180745/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Car . I'd propose going back to something similar.
I agree. The current article is lopsided, there is much more coverage of the Jonas Blue (who?) version than the Tracey Chapman one. Fig (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, there's so much backstory about the Jonas Blue cover, but I doubt anybody really cares about that; it's a cover. What's there to tell? Ostensibly the main reason almost everyone who views this page is looking at it is to find out if it's inspired by Chapman's real life.
There are so many cover songs, shouldn't a Fast Car (Covers) page be created?
