Talk:Have I Told You Lately

Fair use rationale for Image:Long Black Veil.jpg

Image:Long Black Veil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the same song as "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You" - need to merge

I just listened to both on YouTube. Same song. Van Morrison's version was yet another cover of the original. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to listen some more and maybe read the lyrics for both songs. There are two different songs. Have I Told You Lately: Songfacts Agadant (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Connection to the theme from Rio Grande

Is there any connection of "Have I Told You Lately" to the title music of "Rio Grande", written by Victor Young? It sounds similar, although not the same. --129.13.186.3 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding second line to identify which one it is

Let's face it, we have two almost identical songs here. I think any entry in wikipedia with a name that is almost identical with another should admit the problem and try to help out the user. Just mentioning the other entry often does NOT solve the problem. I can see that Wikipedia doesn't want to mention such things in the article. It seems harmless to simply provide the second line. However it just sits there - because I don't dare write "to differentiate it from a song with a similar title", which seems completely improper in Wikipedia.Zipzip50 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it got undone, with the comment, " It is clear to readers if they read the article." Darned if I can see which part of the article would give you a clue as to which song it is. I admit it was awkwardly placed. Perhaps someone else could handle this better than I have, since I have yet to master the ins and outs of wikidom, and it's too late now!Zipzip50 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd into Have I Told You Lately given that former is a cover of the latter (song), and that the combined article size is not large enough to warrant a split. Klbrain (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge the Dutch-language version of this song, Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd It is the same song and separates the history of the Van Morrison song, which is contrary to WP:NSONGS . A merger will not take this article anywhere near the recommendations for separating articles.Richhoncho (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be undue weight to spend so much of the article on the original song talking about the production and performance of the Dutch version? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a relevant argument, if there is too much weight, then relevant parts can be increased/decreased. It's a continual process in WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. A song in the Dutch and Belgian charts passes notability guidelines regardless of whether it's a cover. Not to mention that when a song is in a different language, it isn't "the same song". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As already pointed out, we are NOT discussing the notability of Clousseau version, but whether it should follow the guidelines in WP:NSONGS which state, Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions --Richhoncho (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Which would be relevant if a translation was simply a "cover". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose/Don't merge. As the author of the Dutch version article, I will provide a summary of my rationale, followed by a more detailed explanation of each point in the show/hide box I've placed after the summary.

SUMMARY (or the TL;DR version)

1. SAME SONG? The Dutch cover is not really the same song, per se, since the only thing the Dutch cover has in common with the English original is the melody; the English translations of the song title and lyrics are substantially different from the original. So although the songs are similar, they are not the same; and the Dutch version is different enough from the English original that having two separate articles will not confuse readers looking for detailed information about either song.
2. COVER OF A COVER There is a notable cover of the Clouseau's Dutch language cover, i.e. the Clouseau cover was original enough that someone made a notable cover of it (per #5 of the notability requirements). Thus, the Dutch cover by Clouseau is now actually the "original version" for this notable cover. These should both be kept together in a separate article about the Dutch cover.
3. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:SPINOFF (RE: "Size") advise editors to split a subtopic into a separate article, if: 1) one section is disproportionately larger than the rest of the article; and 2) its level of detail is beyond the scope of the main article. When the detailed 9k article about the Dutch cover (even shrunk down to 8k) was merged into the 22k Van Morrison article, it resulted in a subsection that was over 25% of the total article, and was beyond the scope of the main article. Thus this merge is the exact opposite of what WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:SPINOFF advise. According to these policies, a short summary of the Dutch cover should be left at the main (parent) article, with a link to the more in-depth (child) article. In this way, the original (Van Morrison) song's history is preserved, but only what is relevant to the main article is kept; the rest is spun off into a separate article.
4. WP:NSONGS allows for/does not prohibit a cover version standalone article, as long as the cover is notable and there is enough content for a detailed (i.e. not stub) article. The Dutch cover by Clouseau satisfies both requirements. Additionally, the Dutch cover is not the same song as the original; it is itself the "original version" for a notable cover; and it is too big and too detailed to be merged into the English original's article (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:WHENSPLIT, WP:SPINOFF). Therefore, it merits its own article, and should not be merged.

DETAILS - SAME SONG?; COVER OF A COVER; SUMMARY STYLE; NSONGS

SAME SONG?

• Song/article title: Dutch version "Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd" (literally translates to "Have I Ever Said") vs English "Have I Told You Lately"—readers will not likely confuse the two articles, or find one article when searching for the other.
• Lyrics: The lyrics are in two different languages, and the meaning of the Dutch version is very different from that of the English version; it could technically be considered a different song, which uses the same melody. For example, "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" has the same melody as, but different lyrics from, "God Save the Queen". The Dutch version is therefore not the equivalent of other covers, i.e. those with the same lyrics and melody as the original version (e.g. the Rod Stewart cover: same title, melody, lyrics, language).
• Conclusion: the Dutch cover is dissimilar enough from the original that readers won't confuse it for the original version. They are similar enough to say they're related, but not close enough to say "it's the same song".

COVER OF A COVER

• There is a notable cover of the Clouseau/Dutch language cover. X-Factor winner Udo Mechels recorded a notable cover (per #5 of the notability requirements) of the Dutch version by Clouseau. Again, Clouseau's lyrics (when translated) are quite different from the original English lyrics. Therefore, the Clouseau song is technically an "original version" for Udo's cover. Udo's notable cover should be kept with the Clouseau original in the standalone article for Clouseau's Dutch version, to preserve this unique connection—which would otherwise be lost when merging both songs into the English original version's article.

WP:SUMMARY STYLE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:SPINOFF

Relevant policies:

WP:SUMMARY STYLE

WP:SUMMARY STYLE provides for multiple levels of detail, to let the reader decide how much or how little depth of info they want. A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own, while a summary of the subtopic (i.e. "SUMMARY STYLE") is placed in the main article with a link to the more detailed article. Readers who want more detailed info will click the link, and those who don't will skip it.

WP:SPLITTING (WP:WHENSPLIT):

The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance.

If...a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles.

WP:SPINOFF

Sometimes...an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure.

• These policies indicate that a disproportionately large and detailed subsection should be spun off into its own standalone article. The detailed 9k article about the Dutch cover (even shrunk down to 8k) was merged into the 22k Van Morrison article, resulting in a subsection that was over 25% of the total article, with a level of detail beyond the scope of the main article. Thus this merge is the exact opposite of what WP:SUMMARY STYLE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:SPINOFF advise.
• There is no requirement for an article to reach a specific size limit before a too-large subsection can be spun out and developed into its own article.
• Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:WHENSPLIT, and WP:SPINOFF, my intent was/is to leave the summary of the Dutch cover in the "Other versions" section, and provide a link to the new, more detailed spin-off article (and I have already done this). This preserves the history of the Van Morrison original version article, while keeping only what is relevant to the article and spinning off the rest per WP:SUMMARY STYLE, etc.

WP:NSONGS

According to WP:NSONGS, there are two requirements for a song to merit its own article:

• Notability: Songs and singles are probably notable if...
• Length: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.

The delineation of these requirements is followed by instructions regarding cover versions specifically: Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. [emphasis mine]

• "Normally" refers to the fact that most covers don't meet the notability and length requirements to merit their own standalone articles; these should be merged into the main article.
• However, the exception to "normally" requires this sentence to be placed in context with the material immediately preceding it, i.e. notability and length requirements for standalone song articles; thus, covers that are both notable enough and have enough material to warrant a "reasonably detailed article", merit their own article.
• The Dutch version article meets both requirements, and in combination with the other factors noted above—i.e. it's not the same song as the English original; it's the "original version" for a notable cover; and it's too big/detailed to be merged per WP:SUMMARY STYLE, WP:WHENSPLIT, and WP:SPINOFF—it should remain a standalone article.

~ Big universe (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Merge Appears to be the same song with Dutch lyrics. The Heb article doesn't discuss that it has anything else that sets it apart from the original. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

In the "Cover of a cover" section of my "Summary", there is a notable cover​ (per #5 of WP:NALBUMS) of the Dutch cover. I've updated the section to include links that show that an X Factor winner named Udo Mechels did a cover version, of Clouseau's Dutch-language cover, of Van Morrison's original English-version song. This is very unusual and probably unique. Also, as I noted in the "Same song" section, the meaning of the English translation of the Dutch lyrics is very different from that of the original lyrics; so at most, it's based on the song, rather than being identical to the original (e.g. the Rod Stewart version--same title, lyrics, melody, language). Big universe (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that a "cover of a cover" (if there is such a thing) trumps WP:SONGCOVER. A WP:RfC should be opened and please follow a conventional discussion format that doesn't give undue prominence to one position. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS allows for exceptions for some covers via the word "normally"; this is also verified in the original discussion that led to the consensus for the current WP:NSONG phrasing. Several editors explicity stated that exceptions should be allowed including User:Kww, who wrote the sentence, and who said s/he came up with that wording for that specific reason (noted in the linked discussion). WP:NSONGS is an official guideline, but WP:SONGCOVER is not (also noted in that same linked discussion, as well as here, by User:A Quest For Knowledge). In other words, WP:NSONGS trumps WP:SONGCOVER.

The "cover of a cover" actually means that Clouseau's Dutch cover has now become the "original version" for Udo's cover. They are closer to each other than they are to the Van Morrison song. Therefore it's more appropriate to keep them together in the same, separate, article.

And I never said the "cover of a cover" was the only reason: this is in addition to the fact that the Dutch and English versions only have the melody in common (i.e. not the same song); and that merging a large and detailed article into the target article results in a subsection that is 25% of the article, and thus goes against the guidelines in WP:SUMMARY STYLE and WP:SPINOFF—both of which are also WP guidelines. So actually, WP:NSONGS, WP:SUMMARY STYLE, and WP:SPINOFF all trump WP:SONGCOVER.

Big universe (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Merge. I was notified when my name was used above, and I don't see anything in this case that is atypical for a foreign-language cover. It is quite common for a song article to go on and on about covers ... why would the Dutch cover need its own article, but not the Rod Stewart? The Stewart version is currently half the article. This is the issue we always got into: fans of a given cover would argue that that particular cover was special, and we would wind up with dozens of articles about singles, rather than single articles about songs. —Kww(talk) 15:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kww, thanks for your reply. (I pinged you because I had mentioned you here, and wanted to make sure you were ok with what I said.) Regarding your questions/concerns:

Fans: fans of a given cover would argue that that particular cover was special. I'm the author of the article in question, but am not a "fan" of the Dutch cover, per se. I only found out about the song and the band from the Van Morrison song article, which I've been editing for awhile. (If you look at the page edit stats for "Have I Told You Lately", I'm #2 on "Top 10 by edits", #2 on "Top 10 by added text", and #1 by character count/"Authorship".) Since the Dutch cover is notable, my original intent was to create a "Clouseau section" in the Van Morrison article. But when I discovered the (notable) cover by Udo (see next), I realized it could be expanded into a full article.

A notable foreign-language cover: I don't see anything...atypical for a foreign-language cover. Most foreign-language covers (and covers in general) mentioned in song articles don't meet both of the WP:NSONGS requirements for notability and length; the Dutch cover meets both (see "Rod Stewart Cover", next). Also, as noted above, there is a notable cover (per #5 of WP:NALBUM) of the Dutch cover, making the Clouseau Dutch cover the "original version" of the (notable) Udo cover. Keeping the standalone article preserves this unusual connection: in the "Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd" article, the Clouseau Dutch version is the original version, and the Udo version is a derivative (notable) cover of Clouseau's original version.

Rod Stewart Cover: why would the Dutch cover need its own article, but not the Rod Stewart? The Stewart version is currently half the article.

• The Rod Stewart cover (RSC) only meets the notabiity requirement but not the length requirement of WP:NSONGS; so it's not equivalent to the Dutch cover, which meets both. The RSC section isn't actually "half the article": most of it is charts, i.e white space, so the section looks larger than it is. The RSC version has very little prose, except for the intro, which is only 585 characters long (102 words). The Dutch cover article is almost 3,000 characters of prose (502 words; not including headings, infobox, refs, chart info), so it's five times the size of the RSC section.
• If the RSC section was made into an article as currently written, at best it would be a stub, with only an intro section and a charts section. In contrast, the Dutch cover article has an intro section and 10 additional sections—and everything is referenced. Thus it's well beyond a stub.

~ Big universe (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, nothing new, special, or unusual. You seem predicated on the idea that our goal is to have articles about singles. There's one song. It has been performed several times in different ways by multiple artists. That can all fit into one reasonably compact article. There's no "weight" issue to worry about, nor any drive to have articles about notable covers. The intent of NSONGS is actually quite the opposite: the intent is to ensure that we do not have independent articles about cover versions, and that we do have complete and exhaustive articles about songs. —Kww(talk) 06:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good idea to keep most cover versions in the main article. But when an article has a disproportionately large section about a particular cover version, it's supposed to be spun off into a separate article per WP:SUMMARY STYLE and WP:SPINOFF; these are both general WP editing guidelines vs project-specific guidelines like WP:NSONGS. Should we just ignore that, then? Big universe (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we are anywhere near the point where the best or only way to handle proportion is by splitting.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)