Talk:Crazy Little Thing Called Love

American Idol

"Performed on American Idol by Fantasia Barrino, David Radford, Taylor Hicks, and Tim Urban."

Is this really relevant ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.190.31 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Might it be more accurate...

"On stage, "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" was an important part of the show. Brian May often used..."

With the context that follows, although Crazy may have been important, would it be more accurate to say 'Crazy was a critical moment of the show'?

Recorded in 1979 or 1980?

See above. - Zone46 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

John Lennon

The reference to JL comes from an interview he did with Rolling Stone magazine. Brian May himself re-typed the actual snippet on his website about 2 years ago. I forget to jot down which issue it came from but it must have been either late 1979 or 1980.

crazy little thing called love

when was crazy little thing called love released 1979 or 1980??

{fact tags}

I have no compuction about removing and instead of tagging stuff that even with a source would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. And remember it is the WP:BURDEN of the person wishing to include or re-add to the article to provide appropriate sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Older verison

Resolved

Elvis Presley did this song way back in the day, please add that info.

No, he didn't, but it's a common mistake, song sure sounds like Elvis. Youtube versions are sung by impressionists like Stevie Riks or Orion. --Echosmoke (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

yes he did in 1965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.56.28.225 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Impossible. The song is credited as having been written by Freddie Mercury in 1979. Jeh (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the next section. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

How could this song have been created by Freddie Mercury if there is a version of it perfomed by Elvis in 1965?

Resolved

Check this versión of "Crazy Little Thing Called Love". It says in the title that was performed by Elvis in August 27, 1965, years before the date on which the article claims it was written by Freddie (1979). JulioSergio (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JulioSergio (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the previous talk points. This is something that was discussed many times. Plus you really can't use youtube as a reliable source for data, with the possible exception of official channels for some things. Donny (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The version on Youtube entitled Elvis Presley Crazy Little Thing Called Love is actually sung by Dwight Yoakam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.104.106 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoever posted that YT video was simply lying, or mistaken. Elvis never had anything like that much country "twyang" in his voice. Besides, if you look at the fine print on the Queen recordings, you will see "(F. Mercury)" after the song name. There's your authoritative source. Jeh (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the same audio as in the original poster's link, in the official video. It is Dwight Yoakam. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Dwight Yoakam version

This is not the Dwight Yoakam article. Why so much space given to one of almost two dozen covers? Jeh (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Cover versions

Yes, people record cover versions of songs. The vast majority of them are not noteworthy, per WP:COVERSONG. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:COVERSONG is part of a WikiProject page. So.. so what? It's not policy, it's not even a guideline. It's just a few editors who agreed on something among themselves. Their decisions aren't binding on anybody else (or even on themselves, for that matter). Worse, WP:COVERSONG actually contradicts at least one bona fide WP guideline, so that provision at least must be regarded as null and void. Something a few editors got together and wrote on a Wikiproject page cannot override a guideline. Jeh (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This page (as with many pages for songs from decades past) gets little attention. If we build a consensus here, it will be absurdly thin. I use the opinions reflected in well-traveled WikiProjects (such as Music) as an indication of the general consensus of how to handle some widely encountered situations. This provides some semblance of order in various issues that do not have policies built around them.

I'm not sure what part of COVERSONG you feel contradicts what guideline, but dropping a note at the WikiProject would be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This part here:

a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article [...] only if [...] the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

But WP:N clearly states that notability only applies to "does this subject get its own article", not to article content. "An indication of general consensus" among editors of a Wikiproject page cannot override that. You can't make WP:NSONGS (notability rules for songs) a requirement for items of article content. Jeh (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a conflict. Yes, WP:N does explain that the requirements do not generally apply to content (e.g. Mel Gibson mentions his kidney, but his kidney need not be notable to be included). The policy is saying it does not limit article content. I am not saying content in this article must be notable.

What I am saying -- and what I believe the intent of COVERSONG is -- is that the selection criteria for which covers to include should be if the cover meets WP:NSONG (and would thus qualify for it's own article if the primary version did not exist). In other words, there are three types of song covers:

1) Covers which do not meet COVERSONG and aren't discussed in sources are left out. OK, so Billy Boxwillie had a honkey-tonk single in 1981 and used his cover of this song as a b-side; we skip it.

2) Versions that are notable by themselves and would otherwise qualify for own article under WP:NSONG (e.g. the Dwight Yoakam version here). COVERSONG suggests these generally get their own section, if there is sufficient content, which I certainly support.

3) Covers which meet the guidelines in NSONG, but we don't have much content on, we list. I see these a lot where several covers have charted, but weren't considerable hits. The song reached #20 on the country charts, then quietly disappeared, say. In this case, NSONG is being used as a list selection criterion, similar to List of people from Texas. We certainly aren't going to list every person from Texas (current population: >28 million). We certainly aren't going to list every person who verifiably performed "The Star-Spangled Banner" (one at every MLB/NFL game in the past 50 years). The WP:CSC gives us three commonly used options, the first of which is pretty well mirrored by COVERSONG.

Basically, I see the intent as getting rid of the artist who sang the national anthem at an NFL game, covered a U2 song in a concert or is one of the thousands of artists who have released versions of "Yesterday" and limit the article to those readers might be interested in. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's your opinion. But regardless of what you think of the validity of WP:COVERSONG and what seems to me to be an obvious conflict with WP:N, its advice is not binding on anyone. It's part of a Wikiproject page. It doesn't have the status of policy, nor even of a guideline. See WP:PROJPAGE:

An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

So you can't defend your deletion by referring to WP:COVERSONG. Jeh (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your position on COVERSONG is based on WP:N saying, "These guidelines...do not limit the content of an article or list." True, if I were pointing to NSONG and saying it says not to include it, that would be wrong. I am not.

I am saying (and COVERSONG seems to agree) that this is a list and should not be indiscriminate. Lists need selection criteria. The most common selection criteria is to include only notable entries: notable people from a particular place, notable companies, notable artists, etc.

We clearly cannot list every cover of the song. Other than using notability as a filter or having an indiscriminate list, what would you suggest? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

My position on COVERSONG, and on all of WP:SONGS for that matter, is based on WP:PROJPAGE. SONGS has utterly no authority. It is just a few editors' ideas, as they agreed with each other at one time. As far as any other editors are concerned they were mice thinking they could vote to bell the cat. Ignore COVERSONG.

WP:CSC does not apply here. WP:CSC is part of the guideline page on standalone list articles, It does not apply to brief lists appearing within an article. Read the lede of WP:SAL. Jeh (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What was "indiscriminate" was your wholesale deletion of the entire list - this after another editor had recently trimmed it by about half. Exactly how was Wikipedia harmed by a dozen or so lines mentioning cover versions of this song? Jeh (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I was going with a suggestion from an active wikiproject. That seems to bother you.

In your opinion should we:

A) list every cover of the song we can find a source for (which simply will not work in many other articles),

B) list covers that, had the original not existed, would have been notable on their own (my suggestion),

C) list some covers, but not others, based on the individual preferences of various editors who come to this article over time (apparently the current situation)

D) some other scheme developed just for this article that might be unworkable in many other cases. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Elevation of a Wikiproject's advice page, "active" or not, to "that which must be obeyed" status bothers me, yes. Particularly because it flies in the face of WP:PROJPAGE. There is no requirement to comply with WP:SONGS.

I'm not required to define a reason for restoring material that you indiscriminately deleted. You have not given any valid justification for your action, which was borderline vandalism. (We even have a multilevel warning template for such.) COVERSONG is just some other editors' opinion and carries no particular weight, "active" Wikiproject or not. Jeh (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeh, it appears to me that the project guideline WP:SONGCOVER is similar to the Wikipedia content guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE which tells us that an embedded list of items (people) can be required to meet WP:N for every entry, and also to meet a relevance requirement for the topic. So SONGCOVER is not so unusual in its design. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying you must do anything. I am suggesting that we need a way to refine the list of covers we are including here from the universe of options. We have a range of options, from every cover of the song by anyone ever to none whatsoever. The current list is "covers that whoever happens by here wants to include at a given point in time for whatever reasons strike them at the moment". That's pretty indiscriminate.

That you do not like the way I discriminated (rather than your personal discrimination of "not unimportant" covers) is clear. Yes, I removed songs based on the idea expressed at WP:COVERSONG. Obviously it is not an edict: we hare not required to obey it. OTOH, we are not required to go against it to prove that we are not bound to follow it either. IMO, it is a reasonable limiter.

I do not see any reasoning at the moment that excludes versions by Drake Bell, the Countdown Singers, Diana Ross, the Starlite Orchestra and several dozen others. The current list seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Er, do you mean "reasoning that excludes from deletion" or "reasoning that excludes from inclusion"?

My position is that I think cover versions can be important (though clearly not all are) and what I saw here was indiscriminate deletion with no apparent objective criteria applied.

I find the requirements for inclusion at WP:COVERSONG overly strict; they impose a notability requirement for something as non-significant as a list entry - when WP:N says that notability is not a requirement for items of article content, only for which topics get articles. You claim they do not impose such a requirement, but COVERSONG refers to WP:NSONGS, which is exactly criteria for notability of songs!

There are a great many embedded lists on Wikipedia filled with items that would not meet an analagous requirement ("the (whatever) is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the article") and the encyclopedia does not seem to be harmed thereby. Personally I feel a cite of the cover at allmusic.com is completely sufficient; e.g. album tracks and "B" sides can most certainly be included. If not, why not?

I can imagine that those requirements were likely written in response to some excessive case where someone did try to list, say, all recorded versions of "White Christmas", but that doesn't mean it should be binding on such a short list as we had here.

Going down your list of options:

"A) list every cover of the song we can find a source for (which simply will not work in many other articles)" - no, but if the list is short it'll work fine.

"B) list covers that, had the original not existed, would have been notable on their own (my suggestion)" - I like this, but it seems to me you have a strong preference for objective criteria. How would you prove what would have happened?

"C) list some covers, but not others, based on the individual preferences of various editors who come to this article over time (apparently the current situation)" - so far I don't see much wrong with the results of this.

"D) some other scheme developed just for this article that might be unworkable in many other cases." Or it might not.

I'll add more to this after I wake up tomorrow. Jeh (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A) I'm not sure where you get the idea that the list here would be short. I further see no indication that we have a source that would give us a complete list. Allmusic lists 200 for this song, though there are likely some duplicates.

B) We know which covers would be eligible for a standalone article by applying notability criteria: A song which is an uncharting album track or B-side with no significant coverage would not pass NSONG or GNG.

C) Produces an indiscriminate list: "Here are some covers of the song. Not all of them. Not the notable ones. Just a list of some that a few random people wanted to be here. Add some if you'd like. Remove some. Whatever."

D) Might or might not work. Without a suggestion, there's nothing to discuss. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE is part of the guideline on standalone list articles. That has nothing to do with embedded lists. And please stop using terms like "project guideline", which imply "guideline" status for an advice page. Jeh (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And re "and also to meet a relevance requirement for the topic", all of the covers listed here, even the ones previously deleted, are covers of the song that's the article topic. There's your relevance. Jeh (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Adding_individual_items_to_a_list says that stand-alone list articles and embedded lists are treated similarly. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If you summarize in very general terms what it says, yes, you could put it that way - for some definition of "similarly". In detail, though, nothing there precludes the differences between WP:Stand-alone lists and WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. Items in a standalone list article can each be required to meet WP:GNG, those in embedded lists need not.

It seems to me that WP:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Adding_individual_items_to_a_list is concerned primarily with WP:V. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that items in a list of cover songs should be any more or less subject to WP:V requirements than any other content on WP. You seem, however, to be arguing for inclusion standards that go well beyond mere verifiability. For example, in your earlier large pruning of this list, your edit comment said merely "unimportant". How do we measure that objectively? What were your standards for "importance" then? Jeh (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see why you are not going directly to WikiProject Songs to challenge the guideline about cover songs, to get a larger cross-section of thought on the matter. Our smaller discussion here is not going to change it. Above, you have dismissed it as not binding, but the project page represents standing consensus on general issues related to song articles. Consensus is binding, until consensus changes.

Secondly, importance is the essence of the argument here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The SONGCOVER guideline intends to sift through the unimportant cover versions to present only the important ones to the reader. At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects, the policy says "[a]n article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." So if a cover version exists but reliable sources don't discuss it, then we ignore that cover version as unimportant. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this conversation has wrapped up with a narrow consensus to follow WP:COVERSONG. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Elvis

It’s an Elvis song released Aug 27 1965. Bkkamerican (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not. The origin of the song is as described in the article here. Check allmusic.com, for example. Jeh (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Something’s wrong here!

According to the Wikipedia info, crazy little thing called love, was written by Freddie Mercury in 1979! I just watched Elvis Presley sing that song , and as a matter of fact, it was nearly an exact copy! According to the Wikipedia info, crazy little thing called love, was written by Freddie Mercury in 1979!. How is that? Elvis died in 1977! 2601:700:8003:96A0:90E0:E6C5:EAEF:9842 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Composer Jerry Reed

Jerry Reed wrote Crazy Little Thing Called Love, not Freddie Mercury . 24.74.191.224 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

7th Feb 2024 edit is wrong

An edit was made saying "Elvis did it First**" on the 7th of February 2024. This is wrong as has been discussed before. I appear to not be able to roll back changes, but it obviously should be rolled back. IHaveTB (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)