Talk:Invisible (Jaded Era song)

The song is notable as an Ashlee Simpson song. It should be moved back. Everyking 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I'll give it 24 hours and then I'm moving it back. Everyking 04:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaded Era recorded and released the song well before Simpson, and the article gives more than a passing mention to their version. Moving it back to Invisible (Ashlee Simpson song) would be misleading. See WP:NC#Album_titles_and_band_names and WP:SONG#Naming_conventions. Extraordinary Machine 21:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit silly when you think that the song would presumably never merit an article if Simpson hadn't covered it. Everyking 06:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it looks like EM is revert warring over his changes. Well, I refuse to edit this article as long as it's in this ridiculous state. This is a notable cover version of an otherwise non-notable song—Jaded Era said that they allowed the cover because they hoped that by Simpson covering it, they would by extension get more recognition for themselves. So why does the title say this is a "Jaded Era" song (we still don't even have an article on the band), and why does the beginning of the article deal with the Jaded Era version and not Simpson's? Furthermore, EM's reverted version appears to have removed information added by others. Everyking 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon editor I am supposedly "revert warring" with reverted my edits (and some of yours) wholesale without so much as an explanatory edit summary (see [1]); that could be interpreted as disruption, and I've asked the editor to explain their reverts in the future. Yes, the song probably wouldn't be notable if Simpson hadn't covered it, but that doesn't mean we should call it first and foremost an "Ashlee Simpson song"; Jaded Era recorded it first (and nobody's stopping you from creating an article on them). If you would like to move the article back to Invisible (Ashlee Simpson song), then please make your case at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The beginning of the article (which does mention Simpson's version) deals with the Jaded Era version first because they were the first to record it. Also, if you tell me what info you don't think I should have removed then I'd be happy to explain why I removed it. I don't see what's so "ridiculous" about adding info on the original version. Extraordinary Machine 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you make your case at Requested moves first, or did you just do it on your own? Everyking 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves is the place to list move proposals that will be controversial. I didn't think the move I originally performed would be controversial. Extraordinary Machine 10:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging from Invisible (Ashlee Simpson song)

I'm proposing that Invisible (Ashlee Simpson song) be merged here as, for one thing, it's better to have the complete history of the song in one place so that readers won't have to visit more than one article. It is also under the 32kb article size limit (thus eliminating the need for separate articles in the first place), and other articles have a similar format, such as Who's Lovin' You, Hum Along and Dance, Respect (song), I'll Be There, I Heard It through the Grapevine, I Will Always Love You, Lady Marmalade and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (which is a featured article). If the article contained "undue weight" on the original version, then I think the solution to this problem isn't to create a new article on the cover version and add new info there; it's to add the new info on the cover to the first article. Also, the limit of info on the original is pretty much set, whereas more info about the Ashlee Simpson version will become available during its promotion as a single, so that would eliminate supposed "undue weight" anyway. Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merging states "There are several good reasons to merge a page:"

• "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject." - maybe not applicable here (different recordings), but they do have the same basic subject: the song.
• "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." - likewise, this is one song that happens to have been recorded by more than one act.
• "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." - there's only so much information that can be included about either version, and as I said the article on the original can't be expanded much further.
• "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." - as I said above, by splitting the article we're splitting the history of the song between two pages. I think it's better to have the info in one place, because readers will find it more useful.

Thoughts? Extraordinary Machine 10:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion. Ordinarily I'd be fine with it, but in this case I feel you will use a merge to try to restore your preferred title and the opening weight on the Jaded Era version, so I see this split as being necessary. Everyking 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This page was created only for the Ashlee Simpson single. Jaded Era is not such a famous characted, he does not even have a page with his name, so I would be more concerned with starting a Jaded Era page. I as well see the split between both singles very necessary, there for i disagree with this suggestion as well. Canuck01 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, I think the title should be Invisible (Jaded Era song) because they recorded the song first, so technically it's "their" song first and foremost. This is the same reason why I mentioned their version before Simpson's in the lead section; it's simply a matter of putting things in chronological order. Canuck01, Jaded Era are a band, not one person. Also, please explain why you see the separation as "very necessary"; you said that Jaded Era aren't very famous, but I don't see the relevance. Also, if the Jaded Era version isn't notable without the Ashlee Simpson association, then that might be another reason to merge the articles together. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 20:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the title should reflect the most notable performer of the song; "Invisible" was originally a Jaded Era song but is more notable as an Ashlee Simpson song. To see the logic more clearly, imagine Jaded Era as being even less notable than they are: just some garage band, let's say, virtually unknown. Would your idea about the naming still apply? Everyking 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only do I think it would be misleading to retitle the article with the "Ashlee Simpson song" suffix, but it introduces POV issues by highlighting her version even though she wasn't the first to record it. I think disambiguating a song article according to whoever recorded it first is the best way of avoiding allegations of bias towards one or the other. The garage band comparison is irrelevant here, because from all the articles and webpages I've read, I know the band had already attained considerable fame within their regional music scene before Simpson covered "Invisible". Extraordinary Machine 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew you would say that. However, this misses the whole point of the logic. We're talking about levels of fame here, and clearly Ashlee is on a higher level, and more importantly her version of the song is more notable than their version. So what I was trying to present was a model where, if you thought of Ashlee's version's fame at a ranking of 10, and Jaded Era's version is somewhat lower on the scale, does the particular placement of Jaded Era on the scale matter—or only the fact that it's lower than Simpson's version? Would it make a difference if it was 1, 5, or 9? I think it becomes obvious at the low end of the scale that Simpson should have the title, so I was adding that idea into the discussion as a kind of reductio ad absurdum test. Everyking 03:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaded Era have released albums, toured, they've even performed with Bon Jovi; regardless, I still don't agree that we should disambiguate an article on a song according to whoever recorded the most notable version. For example, Badfinger's "Without You" was covered by Harry Nilsson and Mariah Carey. Nilsson's version went to number one in the U.S. and won a Grammy, but Carey's was a really big worldwide hit. So would we disambiguate it to Without You (Harry Nilsson song) or Without You (Mariah Carey song)? Surely it would be difficult to decide, so the safest option is to avoid any possibility of POV issues and move it to Without You (Badfinger song), because they recorded it first. I know this situation is different, but the basic idea is the same. You told me to imagine if Jaded Era were a garage band; well I could just as easily tell you to imagine they were signed and were as famous as, say, Yeah Yeah Yeahs. I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Titles_for_articles_of_songs_recorded_by_more_than_one_act; I suggest we move the discussion there and not merge for now until we know where we're merging to. Extraordinary Machine 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

merge

Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your opinions on the matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invisible (Jaded Era song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313200820/http://www.popfusion.net/records/recaparchive/2006_06.html to http://www.popfusion.net/records/recaparchive/2006_06.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526153910/http://www.popfusion.net/records/recaparchive/2006_08.html to http://www.popfusion.net/records/recaparchive/2006_08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)