Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

B-sides

Should b-sides be categorized as singles? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think so. B-sides chart (if you're the Beatles), so I think we kinda have to categorize them as such. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Then the questions are
  1. Do fans ask to buy the b-sides?
  2. Do b-sides get awards i.e. gold, platinum etc?
  3. Do b-sides get a mention in books like, for example, "Guinness Book of Hit Records" (or whatever the correct title is!)?
  4. If Beatles deserve a special mention then why not other acts, sauce for the goose etc.?
If the answer to these 4 questions is a unreserved yes, then I would have to agree with you.
--Richhoncho (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richhoncho:

  1. Certainly sometimes the b-side is the reason fans buy a disc?
  2. I don't know lol.
  3. I'm not familiar with that title. They do get mentioned (separately, if they charted) in books regarding the U.S. charts, such as the two that I have at hand.
  4. All acts deserve mention. It's just that it's difficult to track, and I used the Beatles as an example because they are probably one of the few artists whose B-sides have ever actually charted. I mean, it's extremely rare for a b-side to chart. - Bossanoven (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You also need to read List of best-selling singles and explain why the b-sides are not mentioned (although double a-sides are). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to much discussion here, even though I notified the music project. Does anybody have any objection if I change the guidelines to state clearly that "single equates to an A-side? @Bossanoven:. I don't think you have come up yet with any reasonable justification for classifying b-sides as "singles." Is there anything else you wish to add? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Although the record single (78, 45) has an A- and B-side, Billboard only lists the charting (usually A-) side as a "Top", "Best Selling", or "Hot" single (Whitburn Top R&B Singles 1942–1988). It only lists B-sides that have charted on their own. So in this context, "single" is usually synonymous with "A-side". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't oppose the change, but I don't think the statement is entirely accurate. B sides can chart, be promoted like the A sides, receive airplay, but yes, like Ojorojo said, "Single" is normally synonymous with the A side of a record. --Lapadite (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I can only think of one example where the plastic was bought because of the B-side (a jukebox hit), but in that instance only the A-side was listed. There are many examples where the A & B-sides were swapped and reissued and should be categorized as A-side accordingly. Do you have examples so the wording can be as helpful as possible? Now there is a discussion more than happy to discuss on the talkpage here before doing anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "single equates to an A-side" goes too far. Perhaps something like "Singles are those songs that have appeared on a recognized singles chart (such as Billboard's Hot 100) or have been promoted as potential hits (artist announcements, press packages, advertising, etc.)" This way, an A- or B-side (or both) could be "singles". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ojorojo, that's much better than my suggesttion, but does it exclude b-sides that are, say, mentioned on the artwork, i.e. A-side b/w B-side? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
PS. Bossanoven has drawn my attention that if, say Billboard lists both A & B-sides some editors will use that to confirm the B-side is an A-side. Your thoughts? Should wording be clearer on this point? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rich, the Beatles had a whole bunch of B-sides chart. Some of them might be double A-sides, that is something that I cannot distinguish with my sources. Now wouldn't it be weird to not categorize them as singles? - Bossanoven (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about B-sides being categorized as "singles" I think the consensus that a B-side is not a single, but an A-side is. So if a double A-side is released then it is correct to list both a singles, i.e. Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like the consensus is rather that both A and B-sides can be considered singles as long as they chart on Billboard. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples please. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's my take on it. And then Ojorojo's post from 16:01, 19 February 2015. So, it seems to be about split in half. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples please (second request) per your post 21:20. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples of B-sides charting? "I Saw Her Standing There", "You Can't Do That" by the Beatles, "Let's Spend the Night Together" by the Rolling Stones. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. LStNT was a double A-side, the other 2 surprise me. I shall wait for Ojorojo's (or anybody else's) comment. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My refs don't mention an A- or B-side, but some singles are marked "A" or "B". We should go with WP:RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Number One Crush is another example of a b side that charted. Lapadite (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
For a brief time (ca. 1956–1958), Whitburn sometimes uses "Juke Box flip" or "Best Seller flip", for the second side of a double-sided hit when they entered the chart on the same date (Top R&B Singles 1942–1988 entries for Ray Charles, Fats Domino, Little Richard, etc.) However, when both sides show different entry dates, both are listed as being on the "Jockeys", Juke Box", or "Best Seller" charts as applicable (after these charts were consolidated in late 1958, no there is no distinction). Billboard lists the "leading side" in caps, adding, "When significant action is reported on both sides of a record, points are combined to determine position on the chart. In such a case, both sides are listed in bold type [caps], the leading side on top".[1] Some of the singles aren't marked A or B;[2], [3], [4] "Call It Stormy Monday (But Tuesday Is Just as Bad)" is labeled as the B-side (the A-side didn't chart). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: , Didn't disagree with anything you said, I was more concerned with how others might interpret. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf. Now we need to agree the wording. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't spend any time on the background of why this came up, but I had my suspicions. So it would be helpful to know how the terminology is to be used (discographies, categories, infoboxes, etc.) The problem seems to be that RS do not use the terms A-, B-, double A-, etc. consistently. The A-side and B-side article has very few references and makes it seem more cut and dry than it really is, IMO. Maybe use my earlier "Singles are those songs that have appeared on a recognized singles chart (such as Billboard's Hot 100) or have been promoted as potential hits (artist announcements, press packages, advertising, etc.)" as a starting point and de-emphasize referring to A/B, lead/flip, etc. This may work better in the download age. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox standard merge with Inbox song

This recent infobox merge[5] retains the Infobox standard's extra fields for original artist=, recordings= and performances=, in addition to the Infobox song's artist=. Add your comments at Template talk:Infobox song#Merge with Infobox standard. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable song?

Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift#Angels Smile. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER changes

Should the WP:SONGCOVER guideline be loosened to include more sources?

Existing

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

  • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
  • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
Proposed

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if it meets the standard inclusion policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research.

  • All information about the cover song must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the song and the artist
  • The artist should be notable enough for a standalone article
  • The due weight of the cover depends on its importance and level of coverage in reliable sources. A cover that achieves independent commercial success (eg: Joe Cocker's version of "With A Little Help From My Friends", Wet Wet Wet's cover of "Love Is All Around") should obtain more coverage than a single news report of performing the cover in concert.

The proposal would remove the requirement that the reliable source is discussing the song itself, rather than the cover version, and it would remove the requirement that the cover version be notable per NSONGS. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I've recently had a discussion about this project guideline, and would like to propose a change to the following:

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if it meets the standard inclusion policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research.

  • All information about the cover song must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the song and the artist
  • The artist should be notable enough for a standalone article
  • The due weight of the cover depends on its importance and level of coverage in reliable sources. A cover that achieves independent commercial success (eg: Joe Cocker's version of "With A Little Help From My Friends", Wet Wet Wet's cover of "Love Is All Around") should obtain more coverage than a single news report of performing the cover in concert.

My view is this reflects what I see happening in numerous song GAs and DYKs, and so it accurately reflects what the community wants to do. Thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

According to your proposal, would lists such as Come Together#Other notable covers be acceptable if we added sources to the unsourced mentions, or do you think covers should only be added if there is enough information for at least a small paragraph, as the ones above that list? Victão Lopes Fala! 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably not, no. I'd have to go through it on a case by case basis, or split the whole lot into something like List of artists covering songs by the Beatles. I'd keep some of it, particularly anything that charted as a single, then anything that received substantial coverage in sources (say, if the arrangement was wildly different, such as Yes version of America (Paul Simon song)). However, with that level of covers, I think WP:DUE would mandate not everything in the list should be included. I would probably never include a tribute band's cover of song, even notable ones like Bjorn Again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, your quoted text above contains your proposal. The following is the existing guideline wording:

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:
 • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
 • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

So what you are proposing is a loosening of the requirement such that the cover version can be mentioned in any kind of reliable source rather than "a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)". The part about NPOV, NOR and Verifiability should not need to be stated, since all Wikipedia text must follow these policies. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's more a proposal to use a bit more discretion over things and fall back on local consensus and core content policies, rather than going with hard and fast rules. You shouldn't have to state V, NOR and NPOV but I think it does no harm to explicitly put them in, as it's not required knowledge, particularly for newcomers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, to clarify what you are proposing, this is the kind of reliable source that was acceptable in the existing SONGCOVER guideline:
  • Birnbaum, Larry (2013). Before Elvis: The Prehistory of Rock 'n' Roll. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 335. ISBN 9780810886384.
The book talks about various songs such as "Long Tall Sally" and it mentions some of the cover versions. Birnbaum says that Little Richard's "Long Tall Sally" was covered by Pat Boone, Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Wanda Jackson, the Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent and Jerry Lee Lewis. The following sources are not acceptable under the existing SONGCOVER guideline:
So this shows a gamut of sources, some not very reliable, others quite reliable. None of these would be acceptable per SONGCOVER, which must by why Ritchie333 is looking to loosen the guideline. I think it is likely that Ritchie333 is seeking to include sources such as the last three in my above list. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
For me, any cover by a notable artist could be added to a list of covers, as long as a reliable source is cited. More notable covers will of course be better explained with subsections or paragraphs. But I support your proposal for now, if Binksternet described it right. Victão Lopes Fala! 21:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've got the idea - in the specific instance of "Long Tall Sally" I might use the latter three sources, which look fine, though I would probably in that instance do no more than bolt the bands onto an existing sentence. That's about all that WP:DUE requires there. Again, the idea is you could do this rather than you should or should not. The specific incident that kicked this off, by the way, was a disagreement over whether or not to include Sarah Vaughan and Tenacious D's covers of "You Never Give Me Your Money" - I thought they should because the style and performance was significantly different to the original (as backed up by sources in both cases) and it's not a song that's covered very often, so any RS mentioning it carries more significance than, say "Yesterday". However, I wouldn't be inclined to mention The Bootleg Beatles covering it, unless a RS had some other unusual fact that was worth dropping in. Anyway, horses for courses. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
With the proposed language, would a reference to a track listing in the discography section of an artist's biography, AllMusic, or Billboard be considered an RS? Or should the bar be a little higher? How much "discussion" (previous language) in the RS would make it suitable for inclusion? It seems that something more than confirmation of the song's existence should be required. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't. Most of the time when I've sourced off AllMusic, I've tried to include some opinion of the difference between a cover and the original. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Then maybe add to the proposed first criterion: "All information about the song cover must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the song and artist. Bare listings, such as in a discography, album track listing, performance list, etc. without any critical commentary do not meet this requirement." Otherwise, about any song by a notable artist could be added to an article (AllMusic, Billboard, etc. album reviews include track listings, although only a few songs are actually discussed by the reviewer). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Very enlightening post, Binksternet! But I must be missing something. Why would the three sources you cited (i.e. the book Riot on Sunset Strip: Rock 'n' Roll's Last Stand in Hollywood, the book All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul, and the website AllMusic) be categorised, per WP:SONGCOVER, as "not acceptable"? -The Gnome (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Because the sources are talking about the particular rendition rather than the song. SONGCOVER says that the reliable source must be "on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)." So the books All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul and Riot on Sunset Strip: Rock 'n' Roll's Last Stand in Hollywood, both of which discuss the career of the Rivingtons, are not talking about the original song, they are talking about the rendition by the Rivingtons. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. This clearly cannot stand. The rule must be amended to accommodate such sources, since the notability over-riding principle does not allow exclusions of notable information on account of technicalities, e.g. song nomenclature. -The Gnome (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Binksternet and I had a discussion about the existing policy in WP:SONGCOVER last night on Talk:Be_My_Baby#Cover_songs. I think most of the problem is that WP:SONGCOVER is so poorly worded and we may be having trouble with the definitions.
  1. A song article is about the "song," not about the artist who first charted with it.
  2. A rendition includes the original single and "rendition" is overused in WP:SONGCOVER. Does it mean "this rendition", "original rendition" or "all renditions?" In fact, the term cover-version is not in WP:SONGCOVER.
  3. Currently, the first bullet in WP:SONGCOVER requires that the rendition (cover version) be discussed by reliable sources, I don't see how that this has been construed to mean that the original single (rendition) must be discussed, or the article's subject must be about the cover version -- discussed simply means discussed -- two sentences is a discussion.
  4. The second bullet in WP:SONGCOVER goes to standard notability requirement in WP:NSONG. However, a careful reading of WP:NSONG reveals that the Notability section and the requirement for creating a new song article have been commingled. Only the first three sentences of WP:NSONG pertain to Notability, the rest of WP:NSONG deals with when to create a Song article and has nothing to do with cover versions (renditions)WP:SONGCOVER.
I believe the first problem lies in WP:SONGCOVER.

WP:SONGCOVER (my suggested edit in strikethru)

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

  • the rendition cover version is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
  • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

For lists of recordings by date, use an instance of {{{date}}}: for each entry; see WP:DATELIST.

The second problem is in WP:NSONG. Notability is the requirement for articles -- all of the various contents of an article generally need not meet Notabiliy -- WP:SONGCOVER seems to be an exception to the rule. (added comment: But, the rules for creating a song-article surely do not apply to WP:SONGCOVER.)009o9 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NSONG(my suggestions in bold)

Notability:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3]

Song article creation:

Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

  1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
  2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
  3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions.

Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position.

  • Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
  • Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and Wikibooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content.
Finally, I am a no vote on requiring that the subject/artist already have an article, if the cover version is already WP:RS and Notable, why would we make the bar even higher? These mentions help emerging artists get their articles started (eliminating orphans) and help the artists to avoid AfD nominations. Additionally cover-songs are good for the industry, the writers and composers are getting paid through Sony and others, engineers are getting additional work, and the best music is performed when the artist is young. Why would we be interested in removing facts about artists that may one day be legendary?009o9 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If they are not legendary now, the information cannot be included per WP:CRYSTAL. Otherwise we could include Bringers of Darkness' "hardcore" cover of "Yesterday", cited to a passing mention of their fourth on the bill gig in the Boise Advertiser, which would make the article unwieldily. And remember WP:IAR - guidelines are not rules set in stone and dictated by executive fiat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you for performances, tours and performances are generally not published works. But in your example, it's highly unlikely that the song, performed by a garage-band is going to be discussed WP:RS (cruft is going to be added no matter what the guidelines says -- garage bands don't care about guidelines). In the case of a published recording, I think that discussing the song under WP:RS is already a high bar to hurdle.
There is also another level of cover, that I haven't seen discussed, and that is, when is a second Template:Infobox single is added to song article? After all, the original artist rarely owns the song, and even then, the owners will licence cover versions over time. Shouldn't that policy be also be defined/referenced in WP:SONGCOVER?
Apparently, I don't agree with your reading of WP:CRYSTAL, the second sentence begins with "All articles...". WP:COVERSONG already raises the bar for bullet-points, almost to the Notability requirement as an article.
IMHO Tightening the guideline won't stop the garage bands from adding their cover, but it will make it easier for impatient editors to wholesale delete/blank notable covers without reading the reference.11:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW: One way to detect cruft, would be to create bot that searches for cover-version entries that are not contained in the WP:DATELIST template, vandals won't bother to take the time to figure out how to use it. 009o9 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@009o9: A couple of questions about your proposed language: When would a rendition meet the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS, but not be discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song? In other words, why have the second criterion? I don't think that covers need to be notable enough for a stand alone article, but agree that the artist should. Also how much "discussion" meets the requirement? I think this needs qualification, such as "non-trivial" or "substantive". Otherwise, using Ritchie333's example, lumping a list of songs in with a blurb about a concert in an obscure publication may meet RS and open the door for many unimportant covers. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, but when Melissa Manchester got blanked from a cover version section Be My Baby. with two references, this piqued my interest. My suggestions in talkquote was provided mainly to display how WP:COVERSONG has been misinterpreted. I'm not sure why the first bulletpoint is so convoluted and circular. I had never given much thought to cover version sections because they are so trivial, I may try to find some time to examine how WP:COVERSONG got the way it is today. I assume that WP:COVERSONG reached some sort of consensus in the past, we should look into that. 009o9 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I will see if I can find time to wade through WP:COVERDISCUSS some time this week.009o9 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have a robust standard for how significant was the performance or the recorded cover version. If the cover version had a lasting impact that would be best. Whatever we decide, I hope very much that it will specifically address all the Chipmunk covers and all the Glee covers. That would help me figure out what to do with that person from near St Louis, Missouri, who spams Glee and Chipmunk covers throughout all the song articles, and has been doing it for a couple of years.[113] Sheesh. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you bring up Glee, this discussion should probably include both Television and Film workgroups, since WP:COVERSONG would also include those performances. WP:SONGCOVER would undoubtedly be used/quoted to manipulate policy in their domain(s).
My concern here is not to promote new artists, it is the interlinking (wiki-markup) that helps determine whether an artist's article is even possible. The old rule of thumb is three incoming wikilinks (which I still go by), but that guideline has been reduced to one incoming wikilink. I can have four good references for an article, but if I don't have an incoming wiki-link, the article tagged by a bot as an orphan.
Your proposal is certainly better than the existing, the opening para is good, but I have concerns...
  • All (is this word needed?) information about the cover song must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the (which song?) song and the artist (which artist?)
  • The artist should be notable enough for a standalone article (This does not say the artist must have an standalone article only that (s)he is notable enough to have one.)
  • The due weight of the cover depends on its importance and level of coverage in reliable sources. A cover that achieves independent commercial success (eg: Joe Cocker's version of "With A Little Help From My Friends", Wet Wet Wet's cover of "Love Is All Around") should obtain more coverage than a single news report of performing the cover in concert. (So if a cover version has more coverage now in 2015 than the surviving coverage for the original release, does the new cover version assume the article's lede?)
  1. Does WP:SONGCOVER apply to the entire Wikipedia? I.e., Film, Television, Radio, Podcasting, etc? If not, then it should say so.
  2. You've addressed Due weight, but not secondary Infoboxes, as for flow, due weight is a problematic way to dictate writing style, why not just stick to chronological order since we are providing a historical account?
  3. Charting is also becoming problematic, Billboard Magazine recently destroyed their archives and we don't know who is going to win in the digital "spins" arena. The Gavin report is long gone and a lot of Wikipedia editors loathe YouTube stats. Most importantly, iTunes is tight-lipped about their sales figures. (009o9)
@Binksternet: I think we agree 1) "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)" is too restrictive and needs to go, 2) there needs to be some threshold for inclusion in articles besides a mere mention in a RS. However, besides sales charts & awards, how would "significance" or "lasting impact" be measured? (I don't think that many RS would be so clear). For your examples of covers, those without refs (most) can be removed as unreferenced. For those with references, do they actually discuss the cover or just include it in a track or performance listing? —Ojorojo (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Throwing this out to test the water. Since statistics have been brought up, What would be a recommended threshold view-count for a YouTube cover-song, from an official channel, that has no other coverage for inclusion?009o9 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed My outline for WP:COVERSONG update covering concerns expressed. 009o9 (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if it meets the standard inclusion policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. For cover-renditions, there are two cases to consider:

Case 1 (For brief mentions in cover song sections or lists of cover songs.)

  • Information about the covering-rendition is attributed with at least one reference from a reliable source that:
    • mentions or discusses details about the covered-song, the covering-rendition and the covering-artist or,
    • demonstrates the covering-rendition was performed on a national television show or feature film or,
    • demonstrates audio/visual play-count that exceeds 1,000,000 on a reputable online service or,
    • demonstrates ranking on national or significant music or sales charts or,
    • demonstrates a nomination or win of a notable award for the covering-rendition.
For lists of recordings, or notable performances by date, use an instance of {{Timeline-event}} for each entry; see WP:DATELIST.

Case 2 (For recorded covering-renditions that would otherwise qualify for a stand-alone article.)

  • If the covering-rendition itself meets the requirements at WP:NSONGS, an appropriate Infobox ( {{Infobox single}} or {{Infobox song}}) may be added to the song article in release-date chronological order, and well sourced details about the covering-rendition may be merged into the body of the song-article.

In both cases, song-article content is subject to WP:DUE.

  • Note 1. These guidelines apply to song-articles, other WikiProjects may have differing guidelines; for example, guidelines may differ for cover versions listed in film articles or television episode lists.


Sorry, but your proposal is too complex and adds new terminology (covering-rendition, etc.) and elements (infobox). I think we should stick with Binsternet's initial proposal, with a brief and simple modification to limit scattershot cover additions. —Ojorojo (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have problems with the original proposed, I think it will just cause more contention because the term are ill-defined. In the first bullet alone... What does "All information" mean? Does it mean all the information that is allowed in the song article? Direct quotes only? What "artist" and why? Does this mean the artist that has covered the song, or the artist who did the original rendition? If it means the artist who did original rendition, why is that information required to be in the referenced source? This is a song article not an article about an artist, discussing the writers or composer(s) would be more appropriate in that regard.
We have three items we are discussing, the song, the original rendition and the new rendition. Covering-rendition makes it absolutely clear that this is the new rendition.009o9 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that this problem be approached from the viewpoint of the information the Wikipedia wants, rather than the information someone doesn't want. For instance, narrowing the scope to: "demonstrates the covering-rendition was performed on a primetime national television show or feature film or," would eliminate almost all possibility of Chipmunk cover versions. I personally don't have a problem with Glee cover performance one-liners in the last section of song articles as long as the editor can provide the season and episode number, or other concrete reference. 009o9 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

automated certification categories

Hi, just wondering, how do you get the certified platinum/triple gold/etc categories to automatically generate? There's nothing on the main page. I must have created Category:Singles certified quadruple platinum by the Asociación Mexicana de Productores de Fonogramas y Videogramas at some point (probably noticed it as a red-linked category) because it was on my watch list and saw it was up for deletion. I checked the official site and there are five singles that meet this criteria: Adele's Rolling in the Deep, Ricky Martin's Gracias por Pensar en Mi, Pégate, Tu Recuerdo and Reik's Creo En Ti. The Ricky Martin ones don't have any automated categories but Rolling in the Deep does and it displays this one: Category:Singles certified an unknown number of platinum by the Asociación Mexicana de Productores de Fonogramas y Videogramas. I added the 4x category manually. Thanks for the help. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahh nevermind I figured it out! Fixed the Adele one. The Ricky Matin ones are just categorized manually and Sheik is just a redirect to the album. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian Song Notability

Akash Guhathakurta (talk · contribs) has rapidly created a pile of pages on Indian songs, all AFAIK sourced to one web-site, http://atulsongaday.me/2013/03/18/keh-doon-tumhen-kyaa-chup-rahoon/ for example, and appears to be basically copying the lyrics from those sites. The website has a copyright notice, but I'm wondering if the site itself is a copy-vio too. At least one page Baghdad Ki Raaten, is a re-creation of a recently deleted page. Anyone who knows about this sort of thing should take a look. 220 of Borg 11:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you start looking at the relationship with User:Vamsiraj, one sock dies and another editor with the same interests starts on the same day. If not the lyrics need to be removed as copyright infringement for a start. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I requested a spam block on both the Wordpress subdomain and the atulsongaday.me domain MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#atulsongaday.me The user does not seem to be responding to AfD discussions and from the way (s)he formats the single blog reference provided (with the Wordpress link in clear text and the .me in the hyperlink), the intent to spam is rather obvious. I don't think this person is going to quit until (s)he finds that articles containing these links can't be saved009o9 (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That was quick, user has been deleted. List of articles created. 56 articles, the ones with song lyrics should be speedied, I wonder if we have to notify a deleted account? Can we split this chore up? Three blocks would be to check 18.6 articles. -- 009o9 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all who have responded and acted on this. 220 of Borg 04:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Video vixen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Video vixen. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dixie (song) FAR

I have nominated Dixie (song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Certification

Without you got 2x Platin in Denmark. See the Link: http://www.ifpi.dk/?q=content/david-guetta-feat-usher-without-you-emi-2 Joey929292 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Should song redirects be categorized?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Should song redirects be categorized? czar ⨹ 12:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses should be at at this discussion which user:czar started yesterday. Little point in trying to get three different resolutions. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The above message with the eye is a traditional notice template. There never was a discussion where you say there is. All points of discussion are redirected to the first location. czar ⨹ 13:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RM at Eres tú (Mocedades song)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Eres tú (Mocedades song)#Requested move 3 May 2015, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of record chart alphabetical order

See here. Anyone who is interested may join this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

GAR

Mean (song), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Music FLC nominations

Hey guys, I'm one of the delegates at WP:FLC (aka one of the editors that promotes/doesn't promote Featured List nominations). Lately we've been noticing a problem at FLC, particularly with music-related nominations, and I thought I'd drop by just to give you all a heads-up about it. Basically what we've been seeing is nominations where shortly after the nomination begins several other music editors drop by to vote support without any comments beyond "good job" or the like. Perfectly fine, if there's no real issues with the list, but several times recently those initial "reviews" have been followed by 2-3 fairly substantive reviews by other editors that find some major issues with both the list itself (tables, etc.) and the prose. (not to pick on anyone, but example 1, example 2.) When that happens, it gives off the impression that the initial reviewers didn't, well, actually review the list. I really, really don't think it's anything so untoward as editors trying to create easy passes, or support trading- what I think is that some editors, even those with plenty of experience, just take a brief glance at the list, say "yup, looks good", and support.

The problem is, when we (the delegates) see supports without comments, followed by several intensive reviews that show big problems with the list? We basically have to throw out the initial supports as invalid. This wastes everyone's time, including the nominator's and the initial reviewers', and tends to really upset the nominator. It's just a bad time all around. This is not a problem that's limited to music lists, and not even a problem that's limited to FLC- there was a while, for example, when WP:VG nominations at FAC would get several quick-supports from well-meaning editors, but the only effect was to piss off the FAC delegates and hinder the nominations.

All I'm saying is, if you're reviewing a nomination at FLC (no matter the subject)? Please take at least 5-10 minutes and look through it closely for prose, grammar, logic, formatting, and referencing issues. Just supporting without reviewing a bit in-depth actually hurts more than it helps- it stalls the nominations, upsets the other reviewers and the nominator, and too much of it can sour editors on FLC/music lists/whatever. Thanks! --PresN 01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In the Pines listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for In the Pines to be moved to Where Did You Sleep Last Night. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Bangarang (song) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bangarang (song) to be moved to Bangarang. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Year of a song

I was just going through some of the entries in "Category:1971 songs" because the category had gotten added incorrectly to an article which is on my watchlist, and I wanted to see if there were other errors. I have a question: for songs in the era of recorded music, what year - or years - should a song be categorized in? The text at the top of the categories presently says "written or first produced in" a certain year. I was interpreting for a while as "written or first recorded", but, after looking at some articles, I now think that was a mistake, because when the song was actually recorded is frequently difficult to determine, and in some cases seems fairly unimportant (for instance, if the song was released years after the recording).

So, maybe the song should be categorized into one or more of the following: the year written (which could be assumed to be the year recorded, if known, unless known otherwise), the year first publicly performed (which again could be assumed to be the year written), and the year of release of the first recording. Or, we could simply list everything by first recording date only. Thoughts? (Sorry if this has come up before, I'm not a regular here.)

If we want to categorize by first commercial release date, that should be made clear in the text at the top of the song by year categories. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always categorized them by year of release, even if they are known to have been recorded or performed before. A movie is also probably ready much before its premiere, but we always consider the year of premiere as the year to categorize it. Victão Lopes Fala! 19:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"I agree with Brianyoumans, "to categorize by first commercial release date, [and] that should be made clear in the text at the top of the song by year categories." —Iknow23 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I see where Brian is coming from and I don't disagree, however, I thought I'd just add some thinking matter to the discussion.

  1. The year a song is written is often without any verification.
  2. Many songs were written before the recording process was invented.
  3. Many songs were published on paper first.
  4. Dylan's basement tapes, should the songs be classified as when recorded/written (1967?) or when first released (1975 or 2014)?

With those points in mind I think the year of song should be the first verifiable existence of the song which will primarily be the first appearance on an album, but not always. But where an earlier performance can be verified that should be the year of song. Basement Tape songs should be 1967 because they are contemporary with other '67 songs, rather than 1975 or 2014 songs.
Now comes the real problem, but that into a short understandable phrase we can all follow. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the year of initial release is appropriate for all songs, but some songs particualrly archive releases, such as the Basement Tapes (or Springsteen's Tracks as another example), should also include the original writing or recording year if reliabily sourced. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rlendog:. I think I am reading you wrong. Are you suggesting that a song may be categorized more than once in the Year of song categories? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I am thinking that a song from the Basement Tapes could be both a 1967 song and a 1975 song (or 2014 song). Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be totally opposed to that because it would make the whole category scheme meaningless. Mixing up Year of writing, year of publication, year of recording, year of release, years of subsequent release would be pointless. Would a song like Yesterday (Beatles song) be listed every year because every year there is a new release by somebody or other? Whether there should be different category schemes is another matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not go that far, but I think there are situations where a particular song can be considered as belonging to more than 1 year. Where there is a significant gap between the recording and release would be one such instance. Another (which I acknowledge might be harder to monitor) would be if there was a particularly significant re-release, such as a charting cover single. Although that may not be necessary as single releases have their own category for year of release. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If there needs to be a 1-1 relationship, then maybe the category should be renamed and possibly split as "Songs initially released in XXXX" and/or "Songs recorded in XXXX." Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I agree with Rlendog; I don't think it would be unreasonable to list some songs twice, or in exceptional circumstances even three or more times. I don't think this would happen very often; most songs will simply be listed in one year, the year of release. If the year of writing/recording is different, it could be listed under that year. And I think it would make sense to list a few songs under more than one year of release, if a rerelease or rerecording charts significantly. For example, Candle in the Wind was written/recorded in 1973, commercially released in 1974, but achieved its greatest chart successes in 1988 (a live version) and (rewritten for Princess Diana) in 1997. I think it might be reasonable to list it under all four years. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Candle in the Wind and Candle in the Wind 1997 are already separated as two articles, and have two different year of single release dates. Single releases are not being discussed here. The present category, as it stands, surely means date of creation of song, even thought that information is generally accepted as meaning first time available to the public because we cannot verify date of creation? To inflate that meaning with dates of release (whether album, single, download, re-release, greatest hits, recorded by other artists etc etc etc) AND dates of recording (including songs re-recorded, performed live etc etc etc) would destroy this category by adding non-defining criteria. If you and Rlendog think there should be other categories, then that's worth a debate. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did say that I don't usually participate here, although I have written some songwriter and song articles. I do see the distinction... Although, of course, soon (if not already) the criterion will have to be "commercial release as a paid download" or something like that. I was thinking of the song category as "years that a song is strongly associated with", and if we restrict the "Song" category to the year of writing and the "Single" category to the year of release as a single, that would leave out other years the song is associated with. Candle in the Wind (1997) has its own page, but the 1986-7-8 live version doesn't. And there are instances where a song is simply rereleased and then charts - surely each rerelease wouldn't get a new article? Thinking out loud here... I suppose we might be better off with a set of rules that is simple and fits 95% of the cases, which would argue for simply the year of commercial release. 04:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No problems, Brian, I have seen you around many times. If some "relatively unknown" artist releases an album with a cover on it, to the fan, that is notable, including the year of release of the album and will add to song article. So now we have, for example, Yesterday (Beatles song) categorized by 1966 through to 2015 songs. Is it defining that, say, Daffy Duck released a recording of the song in 19XX? What does that mean, is that defining for the song? No it is not defining. What is defining is that it is a 1965 song. The important part of the description of year of song is "first", take that away and the category might as well be deleted as meaningless and non-defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Further Comment. The category says, Songs written or first produced in (year). This is a category that states when written or first became known. A recording release year, irrespective of the medium, is a commercial release, and relates to the record company, the artist (who may not be the creators of the song) and their products. The two things are different, to merge the two would be similar to merging chalk and cheese! --Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

An an example, how should "Mean Old World" be categorized? It was performed during 1939–1940, but not recorded until 1942 and finally released in 1945. Many RS identify it as "Walker's 1942 recording" or "a 1942 song" and it is difficult to find a mention that it was first released in 1945. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If RS says 1939 then that must be the earliest verifiable date of writing. If an earlier date becomes verifiable, then we need to move to the earlier date. I certainly wouldn't want 1939, 1942 and 1945 used - which defeats the object of the category - songs written in year. A lot of this discussion is because the words "recording" "song" "single" and "release" are used interchangeably, when they are not interchangeable, and have different specific meanings. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So then it would be: "Songs should be categorized by date using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released." If this is the case, the language should be standardized for all mentions: WP:SONG#Categories ("Year of publication or release"), Category:Songs by year ("Songs by the year in which they were released (or, in the case of unreleased songs, the year in which they were composed or finished)"), and the various Category:YEAR songs ("Songs written or first produced in YEAR"), etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Good points, so good I amended the project, then decided I was premature. The problem is the ("Songs by the year in which they were released (or, in the case of unreleased songs, the year in which they were composed or finished)"), is if a songs is unreleased then it should not be in a list of released songs, so that seems a bit strange. "Songs written or first produced in YEAR" is weak but suggests what the category should be, the year the song is written or when unknown, when first performed. The project page can be clarified when the categories have been harmonized. Any ideas on improved wording? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was suggesting the first sentence:
  • "Songs should be categorized by date using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released."
I included the others to show (apparently not very clearly) that there are three different (at least) definitions:
  • WP:SONGS#Categories first bullet currently includes: "Year of publication or release is normally ..."
  • Category:Songs by year includes: "Songs by the year in which they were released (or, in the case of unreleased songs, the year in which they were composed or finished)."
  • Category:YEAR songs includes: "Songs written or first produced in YEAR"
These should be replaced by one standardized phrase. I hoped the suggestion would cover all three of the mentions/definitions: 1) only one year, the earliest, is used, 2) it must come from a RS, and 3) by using "or", a song could be written but never released, performed but never recorded, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think earliest year written, performed, recorded or released would work. An artist might write the song over several periods (might Paul McCartney have started, or even completed, writing "Yesterday" in 1964?), and may write several songs that only become known when they are released (perhaps commercially, perhaps in live performance) and the year of release is generally far more the defining characteristic. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So using the "Mean Old World" example, what year(s) should the song be categorized? ("One After 909" may be a better example). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Ojorojo has it about right (sorry for being a little dense earlier), but I would like to think about it a little more. Rlendog, Yes some songs take years to write, but WP cannot assume what is going on with one and his guitar, which is why there is such an emphasis on RS and ultimately on first performance, release or publication - in most instances we cannot go earlier, but it would be silly to categorise a Stephen Foster song as anything later than pre-1864, or a Jumi Hendrix song post his death. Let's not confuse creativity with commercialism. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I was actually going to use One After 909 as an example. But what would we use if we go by the earliest year? We know it was written before 1962, but we don't know which year. We know it was recorded in 1963 and then again 1969 (the recording that was first released) and that it was first released in 1970. As far as I am concerned - and I think as far as most people are concerned - that would make it a 1970 song. If we have an RS that it was performed in Hamburg in 1961 then I could go with 1961 (but that would probably be a situation where I would argue for multple dates, 1961 and 1970) but except for unsual situations (such as Basement Tapes or Tracks, i.e., songs from the archive) I don't think year written should be considered more defining than year first released (or perhaps first performed). Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Rlendog, if the wording is changed to allow for multiple years for performances, releases, etc., it will open the door for trolls, fans, etc. to add many poor examples. I think one earliest date would provide the best solution and the importance given by RSs should determine whether that is writing, recording, release, etc. Additional releases as singles can be added using Category:YEAR single. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Rlendog. Without a song being written there is no recording/performance because there is no song. There is also Category:Year of song missing and Category:Year of song unknown for instances where we cannot be sure. Songwriting is incremental, without One after 909 being written how many similar Beatle songs might not have been written or at least being written differently? Could Lennon reference a song written in 1965 for One After? We could debate which year One After 909 should be categorized, but it shouldn't be later that 1963 in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully support that the wording be changed, as suggested by Ojorojo, to

  • "Songs should be categorized by date using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released."

It captures the spirit of what the category is trying to achieve.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    • I think that will create more problems than permitting the ocassional possiblility of mutiple years. Most people associate song years with their release, so even if there is a reliable source that Paul McCartney completed "Yesterday" in 1964, editors would be constantly updating the year to 1965. Year written is also more subject to multiple reliable sources disagreeing. And in many cases may not even be clearly defined. For example, when a song is written over multiple years, or effectively written in 1977 but recorded in 1978 with some changes to the original version. If we want a category for year written that is fine, albeit with some unavoidable ambiguity, but that should be Songs written in XXXX. And if we don't want multiple release years, there should be a category for Songs first released in XXXX. Maybe we even need a category for Songs first performed in XXXX. And then XXXX Songs can be a container category. But mixing and matching definitions doesn't seem workable. Rlendog (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Song articles for an encyclopedia should take a broader approach and not focus so much on "releases" (that's what Rolling Stone, Spin, etc. are for). Rather, what the sources fix as noteworthy should be determining. For "One After 909", "The song was written no later than spring 1960[2] and perhaps as early as 1957, and is one of the first Lennon–McCartney compositions" is a pretty strong statement. At that point, a (presumably) RS has identified as a song. I seem to recall the Beatles saying they never finished/released it earlier because they thought that it was too dated and didn't reflect their newer style. So, to identify it as a 1969 or 1970 (or even 1963) song would seem to place it out of context. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That's why it should be classified as a "song released in 1970" or a "song first released in 1970." I am not sure what year to put as a song written for "One After 909" because we don't know, and a category for "songs written by 1960" would not really be meaningful. It is hardly a 1963 song, since it was written before that. But it could be classified as a "song recorded in 1963" if we really want to go that far, since that would at least be accurate, although I think trivial since it wasn't released for another 7 years and then in a different version. As for being "broader" than focusing on releases, the first release of a song is a significant and defining milestone, which makes it appropriate for a category, and consistent with the way we categorize other performance arts such as films. Rlendog (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rlendog:. We have to accept that we will never know the year a song was written in many instances, that's why the discussion regarding the wording. Because we can find songs that stop us having a cosy certainty does not negate the category, nor the difference between a song being written, recorded, arranged, released, published, broadcast, performed or in some cases re-written afterwards. I think what you are arguing for is a Category:Year of song release which is separate to the writing process. FWIW, I am opposed to such a category, because most songs would have multiple year of release and inflate the category until it was totally meaningless - especially now as the 60s recordings come out of copyright under the 50 year rule.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Most songs I deal with were first released as singles and having a different Cat:YEAR song (usually if recorded earlier) than Cat:YEAR single(s) has not created any problems. Maybe an additional Category:YEAR song release would be a workable solution for non-single releases with different dates than Cat:YEAR song. This would be supplemental as needed and not to separate the writing, recording, etc. For example, "One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer" is listed as a 1953 song (& single) for the original, but John Lee Hooker's and George Thorogood's later popular renditions have no date categories, because they were only released on albums. This would be like Cat:ARTIST songs, where only noteworthy versions discussed in the article should be added. Also, it would fit posthumous Hendrix releases and Basement Tapes situations. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: That is what I am suggesting Year of initial release. Then there is only one, so your issue would be addressed. If we want to have a Year of song writing, I think that is problematic for the reasons I have mentioned (mostly that it is ambiguous in many instances) but I wouldn't object. But that should be a category specifically identifying the year the song is written. Simply using XXXX Songs for that is too vague, since XXXX song could just as appropriately (more appropriately in my opinion) be linked to the song's release rather than its writing. Or even, in some cases at least, its recording or first performance. But using XXXX Songs for the earliest date we have a reliable source for its "something" will be too messy and unworkable, and rather meaningless, when it will identify the year some songs were written or a year much later than that in some cases when the year it was written is not specifically known and in many cases the year of writing is ambiguous (the year the composer started writing it? the year the composer substantially completed it? the year the composer completed it totally? and in many cases reliable sources will differ even on the dates of those activities. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
So, for example, which year should Laßt Jubeltöne laut erklingen be classified as? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be classified as am 1854 composition, which it already is. If we need alternate dates, we could have songs first performed in 1898. And if we have a publication date, we could use that to classify as the first publication date, which I would view as analogous to the release date for songs from before when recording became common. That would be the most appropriate date for YYYY song. But I don't really think we need a YYYY song category (except as a container) if we have the appropriate categories for the song's potentially defining years (e.g., writing, performing, publishing, release). Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of debate here about what already existed, year of song was always written/first published, Ojorojo's suggested rewording doesn't alter that. I always had a problem with the category <artist> song, because it implies an ownership that does not exist. If you think new/more categories should be created, then you may wish to do so. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the existing wording. Under the existing wording, all the songs on Let It Be are 1970 songs, except for "Get Back" which was released as a single in 1969 and the folk song "Maggie Mae," as they should be. They may also be listed under another year in addition to 1970, but they are all 1970 songs and should be categorized as such, regardless of any other categories. But Ojorojo's wording would seem to prevent any of the songs from being listed as 1970 songs, since they were all recorded in 1969 (and obviously some if not all were written by 1968, with "One After 909" clearly much earlier). And the year of writing may not even be unambiguous - different reliable sources may disagree over whether song X was written in 1969 or 1968. If there is a reliable source for the writing date I don't have a problem with using that date as the year of song in addition to 1970. But that doesn't seem to be the result of Ojorojo's wording. And that is what I have a problem with. If we are going to restrict songs to one year, then we need more specific categories instead of the year of song. Either the year of song needs to accommodate all the relevant dates as it does today or needs to be broken into more specific categories. In other words, we should only restrict the year of song for Let It Be songs to a year other than 1970 if we have a category available that would allow the relevant and defining date of 1970 to be used. Rlendog (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify a couple of points: 1) the existing wording includes "Songs written or first produced in YEAR"[114]; 2) the proposed wording doesn't prevent songs being listed in the year that they were released if that is all that is clearly verifiable; 3) as with any material used in articles, WP:BALANCE, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available", and WP:ONUS apply. There will always be differences of opinion, including when the song was recorded or even released. This should be handled the same as whenever sources conflict. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed wording is that it only permits the release year if it is the earliest year identified by a reliable source compared with other activities such as writing or recording. All the Let It Be songs were recorded in 1969. So the proposed wording would preclude the Let It Be songs from being categorized as 1970 songs. And if there is a Year of Song category (as opposed to splitting among songs written in year X, songs first released in year X, and possibly other milestones), with 2 exceptions these should be categorized as 1970 songs, even if they are also listed with other years. Rlendog (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
How can a song have more than one "year of song?" It might have numerous dates of release, dates as singles, dates of recording, dates of publication etc. Year of song has always meant year of creation, but with the caveat that if that is obscure/unverifiable, then use the earliest known date. All the suggested rewording does is clarify that, it does not change anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It can have more than one year of song because there are more than one defining events that attach to the song. If we must have a one to one relationship, then Year of Song is not appropriate. We then need separate categories for year written, year first released, etc. If we don't have specificity around the milestone being addressed, then songs may have mulitple years. Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No, No, No. You are still conflating release, recording and writing. That's is why both present and proposed wording has the word "or" to avoid this. Create year of release if that is missing. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Year of Song as currently constituted already covers year of release. That is why we have the "or." Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If that was true, anything with a date before the invention of the recording process would have to be removed. It is YEAR of song, not YEARS of song, the present and proposed wording says, "OR" not "AND." We are talking about "THE SONG," not recordings, not performances, not releases, not radio play, not publication, not different arrangement, different artist, not even whistling "the song" in Wichita on a wet Wednesday with RS - we are using these items to establish the year of earliest possible creation because we are talking about the song. This is why many editors systematically remove later "year of song" categorization. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry I started all this. Second, I think Ojorojo's language is an improvement over what is there now. I think I now reluctantly agree with Richhoncho about not placing a song in multiple years. It is the simplest solution. I think it is a little odd in cases where, say, a song was written in, say, 1956, recorded and released with little success in 1958, and covered by another artist in 1960, who has a number one hit with it. People would probably first look for it in category:1960 songs. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes: @Iknow23: @Rlendog: @Ojorojo: @Brianyoumans:. Firstly, Brian, a song which is a hit single in 1960 will still be categorized as a 1960 single irrespective of the year of song categorization. That said, does anybody have further objections to Ojorojo's suggested wording? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No objection. I'm completely satisfied that "will [also] still be categorized as a 1960 single" scenario.—Iknow23 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it could work as long as we also have a category for "Songs first released in XXXX" Rlendog (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rlendog:. So you propose that when a song is released upon its parent album release (say in 2014) it goes into Cat "Songs first released in 2014". Then if this said song is subsequently released as a single in 2015, it then also goes into Cat 2015 singles.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Additional question. If a single is released in the same year as the album (let's say 2014), it goes into Cat "Songs first released in 2014" & Cat 2014 singles. So BOTH Cats are always used whether differing year or not?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Correct. The singles cat would identify any release as a single while the first release cat would identify the first release in whatever form. Just like under the current definition it would often fall under 2014 songs and 2014 singles. 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "Songs first released in XXX" is that useful. Many songs are notable for later releases. Category:YEAR singles is perhaps more definitive, although I might support "YEAR songs releases". —Ojorojo (talk)
I think I understand. Cat:YEAR singles is used for EACH year that a song IS released as a single. You propose a Cat:Year song release to cover notable later releases that are NOT singles. So like with singles, each year of release as a song ONLY will show in a Cat:Year song release.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I am with Ojorojo on this at the moment - rarely is year of commercial availability notable in itself for an individual song on an album. Digging around other projects I note that artworks and plays are categorized by "written or first produced" and not by commercial display (which is what an album release is). Singles are different and nothing in this conversation affects year of single. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding single artwork in song articles

This discussion is relevant to WikiProject Songs, and interested editors may wish to comment. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

There is an ongoing RFC discussion. Join in to comment to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yoga (Janelle Monáe song) article

There is blanking of material going on at Yoga (Janelle Monáe song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I reverted. Perhaps one or more members from this WikiProject would be interested in seeing if some of the blanking is okay? Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"God and Satan"

The usage and primary topic of God and Satan is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lists of songs standard

What is the neewest standard of songs lists? Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

List of songs produced by Stock Aitken Waterman

Moved to Talk:List of songs produced by Stock Aitken Waterman

Can this page include songs produced by one or two of the trio, such as For Sure and That Sounds Good To Me? Spa-Franks (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey

I have nominated List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if any of you could take a look and leave your comments :) Littlecarmen (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Special allowance of non-free lyrics on National Anthems

Hello. I've raised the question at the non-free content talk page regarding whether consensus exists to allow an exception to our prohibition against including the complete or extensive quotation of the lyrics of non-free songs in the case of national anthems. Guidance on this is currently somewhat contradictory. If you have an opinion on the matter, your feedback there would be welcome! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bell Bottom Blues

Could we perhaps have some attention to Bell Bottom Blues (Derek and the Dominos song)? The songwriting is officially credited to Eric Clapton, but some editors are very keen on stating as a bald fact that the song was written by Clapton and Bobby Whitlock. This seems to be based on Whitlock claiming this to be the case, but it does not seem to have been confirmed by anyone else. Whitlock is quoted on the article talk page as claiming the issue was discussed when he was interviewed on Later With Jools Holland on the BBC, but the interview in question is available on YouTube and most of what he claims was said is not said. Without a more credible, impartial source all I'd be comfortable saying is that Whitlock claims to have co-written it. What does anybody else think? --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked BMI and the sole credited author is Clapton. That makes the author Clapton and Clapton alone. Depending on references, which I haven't checked, mention of Whitlock's claim should/could be added in the text. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've looked at the sheet music on sale at musicnotes.com, and it's credited to Clapton there as well. I've found Whitlock claiming that Clapton has acknowledged him as the co-writer, but no quote from Clapton himself saying that. I've added a brief "Songwriting credit" section, cut down to what I can justify from the sources I can find. Hopefully more sources can be found to expand it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Pray to God"

The usage and primary topic of Pray to God is under discussion, see talk:Pray to God (song) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on unusual prepositions in titles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for "Inhaler" song vs artist

Resolved

The wiki music entry for "Inhaler" is specific to the song "inhaler", however there is also an artist named "inhaler" who has been releasing albums since 2002.

Having said, this, the Hooverphonic song "inhaler" is totally awesome! (so is most of "inhaler"s stuff too imo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.41.175 (talk) 06:11, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Song on notable album has been added to Inhaler (disambiguation). Non-notable band not added, but mentioned on talk page, along with another non-notable band by same name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hurts Like Heaven

RM discussion is ongoing; I invite you to join in for comments there. --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Remix singles

I wish there was a rule about iTunes' remixed singles. Should we add the remix version of a single in the featured artist's discography's "Singles" section? I mean singles like "I'm Not the Only One" or "Pretend" have their official remix versions (with a new featured artist) which are aviable on iTunes for digital download. Would be nice if users, who edit music-related articles, write their opinions about this. --Eurofan88 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason not to. If they performed on a single, it should be listed in their discography. It being remix doesn't change that. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's different in every article. I mean for example in Iggy Azalea discography iTunes' remixed singles are under the section Promotional singles, while in Azealia Banks discography they are in the Single #As Featured Artist section. There should be a concrete rule about it. --Eurofan88 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think they should be in the "as featured artist" section. If it's a promotional single, that can be mentioned in a note. Littlecarmen (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with you :) I think any song released on iTunes for digital download is already a single, it's not important if it's the remix version or the original. I got your point Littlecarmen, but i would like to hear what others say and after it make this official for every article :) --Eurofan88 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Littlecarmen.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Source propriety

Hello folks. I would like to ask feedback if the source http://www.music-news.com/shownews.asp?nItemID=81264 is reliable? Pretty much of the content is a transcription of an actual interview of the singer. Loads of information can be obtained from this article. I haven't done thorough checking if the same transcription existed elsewhere. Many thanks, --Efe (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Efe: Interviews are primary sources, and have to be used "with caution" and in certain ways, but can be used. See also WP:ABOUTSELF.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish, the information I would like to include in a WP article is about the song's writing. It's the artist talking about it in that particular Spotify interview, which was transcribed by music-news.com, a source I'd like to get evaluated. --Efe (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems perfectly reasonable, as long as the claims sourced from the interview are attributed to the interviewee not stated in WP's own voice. I.e. "According to a June 2015 interview with Sheeran...", "Sheeran also stated ...", etc. Per WP:AEIS, we can't state very many claims in WP's own voice if they are not from independent, reliable, secondary sources, and this is a non-independent, primary source, though presumptively reliable for any non-controversial claims the artist makes about the inspiration for their own work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I perfectly understand SMcCandlish. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

R U Professional - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the song "R U Professional" for Featured Article consideration.

It's a satirical song and a form of parody music using sampling.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Song genres under songs by artist categories?

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization#Songs by artist: genre categories that are mostly right but wrong for certain songs. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Band Aid/"Do They Know It's Christmas?"

For a while now I've been pondering the wisdom of having separate articles for these two. Obviously there is a lot of duplication between the two articles... there is little you can say about the band and its various incarnations without mentioning the song, its chart positions, etc. The version I have spent most time working on is the article for the song, rather than the article for the band – this version is better referenced and (I hope) better written than the article for Band Aid. Does anybody have any opinions as to whether we should keep both articles or merge them? Richard3120 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to add I've proposed a merger of USA for Africa/"We Are the World" for precisely the same reasons... the case for merging is even stronger there as one article is FA status and the other is unsourced. Richard3120 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Richard3120 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:NSONGS says, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." --Richhoncho (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: Indeed, and that seems to me to be a very sensible guideline to follow. The problem is it hasn't been applied in the case of either song, as both have two spin-off articles: "Do They Know It's Christmas?" has two separate articles for the 2004 Band Aid 20 version and the 2014 Band Aid 30 version, while "We Are the World" has separate articles for 2010's "We Are the World 25 for Haiti" and "We Are the World 25 for Haiti (YouTube edition)" (there is also We Are the World (album) but that has more justification for existing as a standalone article). So in accordance with WP:NSONGS I would agree with you that there is definitely a case for these forks to be merged to the main article.
But what I am proposing is more than that – that the existing articles for the artists/bands should be merged to the song article as well. In special cases like these, a one-off charity single performed by a one-off supergroup convened for the purpose, it is very difficult to write separate articles about the song and about the artist that don't largely duplicate each other, as song and artist are inevitably closely linked.
So for both "Do They Know It's Christmas?" and "We Are the World" we effectively have four separate articles to keep track of and maintain, and I suggest it would be far easier if for each of them the two song forks and the artist were merged into the main article for the song. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Take On Me

Some editors changed the layout from long-standing format to current mess. I need help on this. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, it seems to me that JustChecking1970 has actually improved the article by correcting some facts that were clearly wrong before. I don't agree with everything he/she has done, such as including catalogue numbers and some of his/her formatting, but in terms of facts he/she appears to be correct. Personally I don't think this article should keep its GA status: it needs re-checking after all the changes that have been made, and the whole 'In popular culture' section is dubious as to its reliability and notability. Was there something in particular that worried you? Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

See Template talk:Infobox single#Proposed Deprecation Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga

This is a current FL candidate, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga/archive1. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Some exciting TAFI news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on lyrics translation layout

Could there be some guidance on how to format translations of lyrics? I reformatted the full version of Peat Bog Soldiers to a table (so that stanza's stay together to make comparisson between (german) original and translation is easier, but is this the right way to do this or are there even better ways? WillemienH (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Rich Girl

I have nominated Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hynm of Rîbnița

We're having trouble trying to find many details about this anthem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKYLSh7YvB8

There's a page for it I made here Hynm of Rîbnița and it was constantly attacked by other users, even threatened to be deleted even after I requested assistance with the article in the edit notes.

If anyone could help find much more information about this anthem, that would be wonderful. It would be more wonderful if this was palced under WikiProject Songs tag so people can help collaborate to find the sources and such.

Sereniama (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, if you can't find sources in Moldovan/Ukrainian for it, there is even less chance that there are sources in English, which is a good indication that the article doesn't pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhythm Nation (music video)

The article has a lot quotes. Paraphrasing is needed without being too close to quotes. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael/Micheal Smotherman

Both inside and outside Wikipedia there are plenty of search hits for "Michael Smotherman" and for "Micheal Smotherman". Are they the same person? If so, which spelling is correct? An image search throws up a couple of album covers (www.cdbaby.com/cd/smotherman, www dot amazon dot com/Micheal-Smotherman/dp/B003MXUHT6 [blacklisted link]) where the "Micheal" spelling is clear. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Caminando"

The usage and primary topic of Caminando is under discussion, see Talk:Caminando (Amaia Montero song) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject 19th-century American Music invitation

Most courteous Greetings to you historical music lovers! Your participation is ardently sought in helping to establish one of Wikipedia's newest projects - 19-century American Music a collaborative venture to improve the coverage of '19th-century American Music' on the English Wikipedia. A treasure trove of adventure awaits you as we improve and expand upon the wealth, heritage, history and impact of this music genre. What is a project without participants like you? If your interest is piqued please leave your calling card and add your name to our proposed Project page. You will be kept informed of the development of this new project in the coming weeks. To leave your valuable opinions and suggestions, please contact me. With All Cordiality and The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Keeping the Dream Alive (Freiheit song)

Having gone through your notability guidelines, I struggle to understand why the article for the song Keeping the Dream Alive by Freiheit was deleted. If it was just a novelty song which had disappeared into obscurity I would have understood, but Keeping the Dream Alive still receives airplay in the United Kingdom during Christmas (It was Christmas last week, I should know), and is often included on compilation albums. If your decision to redirect my article is based on chart positions, please remember that Driving Home for Christmas, another festive tune, only reached the top thirty, yet I don't see anyone making a fuss over that article; at least this song got to #14. Your guidelines also state that any potential entry must have been "... performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album". I can confirm that the song was often used during American Idol as a backdrop to console failed contestants, was performed on Idol Gives Back, and is on the Say Anything... soundtrack. It should also be noted that Kim Wilde covered the song on the deluxe edition of her 2015 album Wilde Winter Songbook. And I should also say that I was about to add more references before it was deleted. I think your decision less than an hour after posting was very unfair, condisering you didn't even "discus" it with other editors. Jemmabond (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It easily passes WP:NSONGS and I can't see it struggling to pass WP:GNG either, so I don't see why it was reverted into a redirect less than half an hour after it was created. Maybe @ScrapIronIV: could elaborate. More referencing would help its case, and pointing out that it was performed on television (no doubt in several countries) would also help. It could be a decent article with time and effort. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bretonbanquet, really appreciate your comment. If the article is re-posted, I will definitely find more references. I also noticed a few typos, so that will be corrected, too. Thanks again. Jemmabond (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER and merging Sugar Mama (Led Zeppelin song) with Sugar Mama (song)

A Request for comments regarding merging "Sugar Mama (Led Zeppelin song)" with "Sugar Mama (song)" has been added to Talk:Sugar Mama (song)#RfC: Should Sugar Mama (Led Zeppelin song) be merged with Sugar Mama (song)?. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Brave (Josh Groban song)‎

I've just completed (for the moment) a significant expansion of this article. A re-rate would be very much appreciated. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 08:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Start-class"? Really?! 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Hollaback Girl for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs and thought I'd post here. Do we have such lists? I don't even see a main article List of most popular songs? It must exist, right? You know, a sourced list of most popular songs maybe by year or decade or genre or country, etc... I think visitors would like to see Wikipedia cover this. Shouldn't there be a start to this? It would certainly turn into a zillion child articles. I'm sure this has been discussed to death. Sorry for not digging. I just woke up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Did I mention I just woke up? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

But, hmmmm, I still see no List of most popular songs... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Most popular according to who? Wouldn't that just be a poll of the public like the TV or radio conducts every few years? Richard3120 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:RS. Aren't there good sources? Rolling Stone Magazine? Top charts? Those sorts of things. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
But a chart, which is what Rolling Stone covers and which is based on known sales, is completely different from a popularity list - the latter is subjective, and varies depending on who you ask, and when. That's why I ask how you can define a "popular song" - different people like different songs... I'm sure for example that as many people hate "My Heart Will Go On" as those who love it, so does that make it one of the most popular songs of all time, or one of the most unpopular, or both? Richard3120 (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, those are very good points, Richard. I see what you mean. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
We have List of songs considered the best, which I had come across and listed at AfD before I knew about this discussion here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to (probably re)visit

the topic of covers. I feel that a list of covers is an important factor in any song article. There is a lot of back and forth going on about what is considered a "notable" cover and that sort of thing. I am not comfortable learning that "This information can be already found on such-and-such a web site" because half (not a science1/2, an art 1/2) the information found on wikipedia can be found on other web sites. But those sites come and go and I believe that it is every editors hope that our editing here is eternal. So to speak. I think that every song article should have a potential List of covers of song title article attached to it. This information is serious information often looked for by more or less serious wikipedia users. Yes, such as myself. I presume that this topic has been discussed, perhaps many times in the past, if someone could direct me to those discussions I'd appreciate it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER changes[115] is one of the more recent discussions. An archive search will provide earlier ones. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

An odd case... what do I name this article?

I plan on creating an article for a Korean single titled "교감 (Empathy)". However, there are a few issues are waiting for me in trying to name this article. First, let me describe the single: it is a collaboration between South Korean musicians Jung Yong-hwa and Sunwoo Jung-a. Released as "Empathy", the artists are credited in the order of 'Sunwoo Jung-a, Jung Yong-hwa', has its own cover, contains the song "불꽃놀이 (Fireworks)", and was released under MagicStrawberry Sound [116]. Also released as "Empathy", the artists are credited in the order of 'Jung Yong-hwa, Sunwoo Jung-a', has its own cover, contains the song "입김 (Hello)", and was released under FNC Entertainment [117]. Both were released concurrently on January 15, 2016.

...As you can probably imagine, this is fairly complicated. I can't name the article Empathy (song) because there is no song under that name. I can't name it Empathy (single) because it goes against naming conventions. I can't name it Empathy (EP) because these songs were released as separately, and as digital singles. I'm not sure if I can gather up information to make separate articles for each song, since a lot of the information is intermixed. What do I do? — ξxplicit 02:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an odd case indeed, without creating separate articles. Perhaps "Empathy (singles)"?, with a plural? My brother recommends "Empathy (1st single, 2nd single)" or "Empathy (1st single), (2nd single)". To determine order of first and second, follow an alphabetical strategy - so the Jung Yong-hwa, Sunwoo Jung version would precede the Sunwoo Jung-a, Jung Yong-hwa version. This certainly was an odd marketing strategy to say the least.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So, implementing WP:IAR and using 'single(s)' would be merited in this case? I'm also actually wondering if I should use quotes or italics for the release. "Empathy" or Empathy? Generally, I've seen the former, like in 4 Times, but I'm not entirely sure which one is right since it's the name of a single and not necessarily a song. This is pretty confusing. — ξxplicit 02:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This absolutely is an WP:IAR situation. I would put the title in quotes when used in the article, as that is the convention for singles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Members may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Bias against notability of artists from early recordings. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_14&oldid=1137364888"