Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

I started a (now deleted) conversation on User:Ss112's talk page, which I thought might be worth bringing to a wider discussion, about redlinks for the songwriters who do not already have articles.

It seems to be usual practice to not redlink composers and suchlike - Ben Billions, one of the songwriters in the original conversation, is mentioned over 100 times on Wikipedia, but never linked, and very few articles have composer redlinks; which means that anyone who does create that article (which I think should be created, as there are now plenty of sources for notability - [1] [2] [3]) will need to go through and link them all.

WP:REDLINKS summary is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." In other words, we have a permissive standard for what should be redlinked.

Given that songwriters listed in an article pretty much intrinsically meet WP:COMPOSER - "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" - I would suggest they meet the rather low bar set by WP:REDLINKS and should be redlinked to encourage creation of articles; or at least redlinks should not be removed if present. TSP (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Those notability criteria are not usually stand-alone. If the songwriter doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the writer, a singe co-write on a single charting song is not enough to merit an article. Common sense here really. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. Unless there's some particular reason to think a writer is specifically meeting the WP:GNG, they should not be red linked. Just having some writing credits is not good enough, and if one continued on to create these articles on this premise, they'd probably end up with a lot of WP:INHERITED issues leading to deletions and redirects. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. That just seems out of line with what WP:REDLINKS says. The policy says that redlinking is good, and redlinks should be added for things that might be plausible articles, and almost never removed. Current practice for people on song pages seems to functionally be to basically never redlink; as it's hard to think when it would be obvious that a writer definitely met the notability requirements unless they already have an article. TSP (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Songs

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

MetroLyrics

MetroLyrics no longer uses the LF (LyricFind) logo to identify "official" or presumably licensed song lyrics. Now, it appears the only way to tell is to click on "edit lyrics" and see whether it reads

"Locked: [X] Lyrics
The lyrics to this song are deemed official and accurate, and are subsequently locked."

instead of

"Edit: [X] Lyrics
Submit Corrections"

Some lyrics which were previously marked with the LF logo now are not locked and can be edited. Since MetroLyrics links were added to thousands of song articles by a bot, this could affect a large number of articles. It may be time to reconsider whether the benefits of including MetroLyrics links outweigh the reliability issues (frequently miscredited songwriters, etc.).

Meanwhile, propose to change the MetroLyrics entry wording at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion) and WP:SONG#LYRICS to remove "lyrics with LF logo" and add "lyrics that are 'Locked' (unable to be edited by users) are acceptable". If there are no objections, I'll make the changes. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I support that change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with it too. I never saw much of a benefit anyways. Lyrics don't really seemed like something an encyclopedia would track to me anyways, even as ELs, not to mention how easy it is to just Google "Song X lyrics" and get 20 different relevant websites anyways. Sergecross73 msg me
Completely agree with you Sergecross73, providing complete song lyrics on Wikipedia just seems like a variation of WP:NOTDIR to me - I support Ojorojo's proposed changes too. Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm reading that we are in favour of completely removing the lyrics from the EL section not just removing those that are not locked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with any/all/whatever consensus dictates. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There are listings for WP:GOODCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTS, etc. Lyrics sites could be treated the same. That way an editor would decide which link, if any, is best suited. Whatever the reason for the preference given to MetroLyrics is long gone. Is there support to bring this up at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
GOODCHARTS and BADCHARTS are about which may be used as sources. This is a different issue: its always an EL and I'm reading two editors (and I would add myself as a third) who think it's not useful as an EL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to find a compromise with those who originally supported it (see Linking lyrics from legal providers, Linking lyrics from legal providers revisited, A bot for MetroLyrics links, etc.). As a practical matter, most lyric sites I've seen have reliability problems, so I'd be in favor of not including them at all. Perhaps an RfC: Should articles contain external links to commercial lyrics sites? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I made the changes to WP:ALBUMAVOID and WP:SONG#LYRICS. The question has been added at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Should song articles contain external links to commercial lyrics sites?. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mi Gente being added to the List

Mi gente should be added to the list as it is now 2x platinum by the RIAA. Regards (190.80.50.137 (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC))

Added to what list, exactly? The article for "Mi Gente" already states that it has a double platinum certification in the U.S. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Catalog numbering systems for single records" article input

Hi there. I would love to get some more input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Top 10 singles

I have been improving top 10 singles articles for the UK charts. I have a query about a couple of situations where a song has been reissued later the same year, should it count as a separate entry for each artist - I am talking specifically about 1985, when Band Aid's original version was still in the chart at the beginning of the year, and then the song was re-issued with a new remix at the end of the year with the same artists.

Should I combine the number of weeks in the "entries by artist" table for both entries, and count them as one release, or do they count as two separate songs and therefore each featured act's total should be raised by one? A similar point over Last Christmas that same year, where it entered in 1984, was in the chart for the early weeks of the year, and reissued over Christmas 1985 (technically not a re-entry like in this and last year's christmas chart).

For now I have got them as separate entries in the chart but combined the figures for entries by artist but I change this if needed. Any extra hands on updating these articles (1981-85 and 2000 onwards are pretty complete so far) are also appreciated. 03md 04:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say to go by whatever the Official Charts Company website lists them as, whether the OCC treat them as different songs with separate listings. Richard3120 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Behind The Wall of Sleep - The Smithereens (song)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so please bear with me. I'd like to edit the page on "Behind The Wall of Sleep" by the band The Smithereens. The information I would like to add is that the song was inspired by Kim Ernst -- bassist for the Boston-based all-girl band The Bristols (with whom the Smithereens once shared a bill). I have a reference to back this up below. Thanks Newfalconer (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC) www.forbes.com/sites/.../the-smithereens-talk-beatles-blood-and-roses-wall-of-sleep/

I'd forgotten this song – it's a great track and sad to see the writer and singer of it passed away recently. Anyway, the problem with that article is that the author is not part of the editorial staff of Forbes and it's a user-submitted article – that means it may not qualify as a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Cry Me a River (1953 song) or Cry Me a River (Arthur Hamilton song)

A discussion as to whether the qualifier form "(YEAR song)" should be used for this song or, with wider implications, for any other song, is currently active at Talk:Cry Me a River (1953 song)#Requested move 27 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Do You Love Me (disambiguation)#Requested move 29 December 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  06:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

and...

Here is another debate I've recently relisted: Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. Come one come all!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I've started RFCs on a couple of issues that have come up recently in the music related areas of Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in chiming in, your input would be much appreciated. The two discussions are:

  1. Photo use in music genre article infoboxes.
  2. Putting album years in navigation templates.

Any input would be appreciated, so we can come to a consensus on how to handle these situations. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hate Me! or Hate Me! (Children of Bodom song) and also Hate Me (song) or Hate Me (Blue October song)

A discussion as to whether elements such as accents, diacritics, symbols or punctuation within main title headers obviate the need for qualifiers is currently active at Talk:Hate Me!#Requested move 31 December 2017. The other affected discussion is at Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Fable (Robert Miles song)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Fable_(Robert_Miles_song)#Requested_move_10_January_2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Top 10 singles Uk issue around 1954

Hi, I have a query that you may be able to input, in 1952 and 1953 there was only a top 12 In the Uk charts (with a few songs tied some weeks) so we have an article for top 12 for these years. A top 20 came into place in October 1954, so how would I handle that year. I skipped over it and started on 1955 for now but have now done too 12 until October 1954 and then change to a top 10 with sufficient notes explaining the situation? Another alternative is to do top 12 until the end of the year then do top 10 only from 1955 onwards with notes on the 1954 and 1955 page. Look at List of UK top 12 singles in 1954 to see what I mean. 03md 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer review of Up Where We Belong

The article Up Where We Belong is currently at peer review Any comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Up Where We Belong/archive1. Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Streaming-only charts

Is it correct to add entries for streaming-only charts, as Kirtap92 did in this edit? Jc86035 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Which charts? Are they already discussed at WP:BADCHARTS? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Never mind; Hungary (Stream Top 40) would probably fall under component charts and should then be removed. Jc86035 (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
(See also discussion at User talk:Kirtap92#Adding streaming charts. Jc86035 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC))
I'm also posting my answer here so more people can see: There's no main chart in Hungary, all aspects have a different chart, that's why it's necessary to post them all. "Rádiós Top 40" is the official airplay chart for Hungary (when it comes to audience impressions). "Single Top 40" is the digital and physical sales chart combined. "Stream Top 40" doesn't need any explanations: it counts streams from Spotify, Deezer etc. We also have "Dance Top 40" which is also not a component chart. It measures the top 500 DJ's weekly playlists, and this way it determintes the ranking, about which is the most played dance song through the country. There's also a chart called "Editors' Choice" which is an airplay chart, but that one is not relevant, as it is basically just counting spins and not audience impressions. There's a similar system in the Billboard Charts when it comes to airplay charts. (Rádiós Top 40=Radio Songs, Editors' Choice=Pop Songs Chart) Lastly we have a chart only for Hungarian artists called "Magyar Rádiós Top 40". So "Rádiós Top 40", "Single Top 40", "Stream Top 40" and "Dance Top 40" are all main charts measuring different things. Then "Editors' Choice" and "Magyar Rádiós Top 40" aren't relevant as "Magyar Rádiós Top 40" is the component chart of "Editors' Choice", while "Editors' Choice doesn't count audience impressions, only spins. That's why I never post them. If there are any further questions feel free to ask me. Kirtap92 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Redbone meme

When did this song become a meme and why? Google is my friend but I like to spread the knowledge of this song around on here.137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're probably asking in the wrong corner of the internet here. We're here to discuss writing an encyclopedia, not casual musings about the origins of memes. I'd recommend Googling harder, or asking somewhere else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Redbone is a song by hip-hop recording artist Childish Gambino off his album Awaken, My Love! It became the subject of remixes in May 2017 following a popular tweet that described a remix where all the audio is muted as “What Redbone would sound like while you’re making out in the bathroom of a house party.”
— http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/redbone

AdA&D ★ 05:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sergecross73 and Anne drew Andrew and Drew, there's a discussion related to this thread that you may be interested in. I recently came across Category:Music memes and there is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 25#Category:Music memes about renaming it. I admit to being a bit puzzled about when a song is considered a "meme" rather than simply "very popular", and it seems I'm not the only one, as both "Africa" and "Take On Me" were recently added to this category, before being removed again. Richard3120 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Assassin (Muse song): genre

I corrected the page to list the genre as "Heavy Metal" rather than "Hard Rock". Someone changed it back (for inexplicable reasons) and told me I had to create a talk page or something. Both of the sources that are cited for "hard rock" literally call the song metal and not hard rock. Please allow me to fix the page without reversing my correction, whoever's in charge of these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:1281:823:4D59:1CC1:829:2F16 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The actions were that you changed genres without supplying a reliable source to support the change. See WP:GWAR for a discussion on the problem.
No editor told this address that you had to create a talk page. If your IP address changes while you're editing, which happens frequently with IPV6 addresses, it's usually better to create an account, but you can edit most pages without one.
As for fixing the page, I would suggest not doing so without supplying a reference with your change and discussing it on the talk page of the article you want changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
This is what the listed references say, so the IP may have a point.
  • Reference 1 says "'Assassin' is like a heavy metal song performed on synths, with intense rudimental riffs and strong drum fills."
  • Reference 2 says "'Assassin' showcases Dom's drumming, usually a let down for Muse. The riff borderlines on a metal riff, but still keeps the Muse sound that always remains prevalent no matter what the band does." and "The chorus is anti-climatic, but the song makes up for itself for the surprise metal sound."
Neither mentions "hard rock" as it pertains to this song. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

New Infobox folk song

Tamtam90 has created a new Template:Infobox folk song. It is similar to the deprecated Infobox standard, which was merged to Infobox song in 2015. It also uses many of the parameters of Template:Infobox musical composition. Is a new template needed or could it be a subset of Infobox musical composition? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Not needed, and should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett has added this to Templates for discussion. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Best-selling songs by year

Is there a definitive source for the best-selling singles of each year. Older years are hard to find unlike more recent years. I'm trying to get an accurate top 10 for the 50s, 60s and 70s for the Lists of UK top 10 singles articles. The best-seller for each year listed by Wikipedia differs in some years from other sources. For example, everyhit.com is usually quite reliable it for 1963 (the latest one I am working on) She Loves You and I Want to Hold Your Hand are swapped around. 03md 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@03md: there are NO official lists of best-selling singles of each year in the UK before 1970, or individual sales for each record apart from the million-sellers that the OCC have published on their website. During the 1950s and 60s the major UK music magazines NME, Melody Maker and Record Mirror each published their own charts, but the idea of an official national chart based on verified sales data was not floated until mid-1968, and the first official chart, created by the British Market Research Bureau for the BBC and the music trade paper Record Retailer (now Music Week) was published on 13 February 1969. Because the BMRB did not have sales for the first six weeks of 1969, they did not do a best-sellers list for that year, so the first complete year with a best-selling singles list is 1970. All "end of year" lists from the 1950s and 60s are based on a points system, not sales. You can find the best-selling singles lists from 1970 onwards in the Wikipedia articles 19xx in British music (e.g. 1977 in British music), but I haven't yet got hold of official sources to verify the lists for 1970, 1971 and 1972 (although the lists are correct). I should also add that for the years 1970 to 1976 and also 1979, the cut-off point for the year-end lists was in mid-December, so actually these lists miss out sales from the weeks leading up to Christmas, which is the busiest period of the year. In 2011 the OCC did create an official list of the best-selling singles for the 1960s decade – List of best-selling singles of the 1960s in the United Kingdom – but it's not broken down into the best-sellers by year. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thankyou, I was kind of aware of the different charts and confusion over sales data but that explains it better. Should I just put the best-seller for each year of the 50s and 60s that Wikipedia lists, or should I go with the everyhit.com points system in that section but make the note about it not being official best-sellers. 03md 16:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have a best-seller for each year of the 1950s or 1960s, and neither does anyone else, so that isn't going to be an option. All we have is the overall best-seller for the whole decade, but this can't be broken down into individual years, as many songs, e.g. Christmas number ones, will have their total sales split over two calendar years.
If you want just a list of all the songs that made the UK top ten in each year, that's easy enough to do, using the OCC website or an old copy of British Hit Singles. When the first edition of British Hit Singles came out in 1977, the authors made a decision to use the NME and Record Retailer charts of the 50s and 60s to "backdate" the charts before February 1969, and this has now become the accepted chart for the pre-official era. But trying to rank the singles of this era in some sort of order is going to be very difficult - you can't do it by sales, and unless Everyhit tells you what methodology it is using to order the singles by year, that's going to be dubious as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
At some point this year I plan to update the article for UK Singles Chart so that it explains better how it has progressed over the years - I've got a lot of information now, including the copies of Record Retailer from 1968 where they talk about the original idea for the chart. Richard3120 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Where does the information in List of best-selling singles by year in the United Kingdom come from, that's the only confusing thing. We even have a template which includes Rose Marie, I Believe, Diana, Jailhouse Rock etc. Not sure if you've seen the yearly top 10 lists me and another user have been working on but they look in good shape (using OCC data). The info you have to expand chart history sounds great also. 03md 17:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It tells you in the references, under "General" - it's a list produced by the OCC in 2011. I wasn't aware of this list - so OK, we do have an official list of the best-selling single of each year. Everyhit's lists, on the other hand, are based on a points system - that's why two Jim Reeves songs top the Everyhit list for 1964 despite never reaching number one, because both of them spent forever in the charts and accumulated more points every week. Richard3120 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I should have checked there, Thankyou. For now, what I think I will do while I complete the chart debuts, entries by artist table etc. is put the best-seller according to the OCC, a note about the points system. As the official charts have released this list it's as accurate as we can be. 03md 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

m:Wikisongs II

There are many songs you can´t writing an article about, so I want to start this new Project. If you are interested in you can write it your name in the list. Thank you. --Habitator terrae (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

WP Project Beatles.

User:Moxy has amended the Beatles project banner to remove all the songs from WP:Songs, and other projects. His rationale for this change is Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination, which would actually say there cannot be co-ordination between projects. FWIW, It means every Beatle songs (and any song or related category remotely connected to the Beatles have now been removed from this project. A discussion has already been started by me at User_talk:Moxy#Template:WikiProject_The_Beatles:_Difference_between_revisions. Anybody else have an opinion? This will also be posted at albums and Beatles projects --Richhoncho (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

*Note Moxy has now undone his edit which caused all the problems, but the conversation should continue in case others are now of the same view as Moxy. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Theory of a Deadman discography

Hello, WikiProject Songs! I have nominated this discography for WP:FL (you can find it here) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything under review that needs commenting. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional information section

I would like to ask about something I see frequently which is mentions of what song a key is in. This seems, at least to me. appropriate in some articles but excessive in others. I'm writing because I noticed that under article guideline it notes that the information "should" be including while also noting that the recording techniques while notable are"of lesser importance"

In my opinion the key section and the Recording technique section should be reversed. So that it lists the key as of "lesser importance". This is also me thinking that the recording techniques, when listed,are very relevant to a song, hence why they would be listed in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure though I'm just kinda testing the waters to see if this would be a good idea. It seems somewhat silly to me to list the key that "God's Plan" is in or a Flo Rida song, but again that might just be me. --Deathawk (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on song titles

Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC: Descriptive phrases and song titles. The RfC primarily concerns the semantics of descriptive qualifiers such as "(Remix)" and whether they are considered part of the names of songs. Jc86035 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Succession boxes are being added to song articles for specialty charts, such as Mainstream Rock,[4] Alternative Songs,[5] Adult Contemporary,[6] etc., sometimes with "multiple runs.[7] Please add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Succession boxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles

A RfC has been opened on the question "Should succession boxes appear in song and album articles?" Please add your comments at WT:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing murder ballads

Hello, folks. I've been in discussion with another editor about the proper use of Category:Murder ballads. In my view, this category should be reserved to articles that are reliably associated with the genre of murder ballads, a genre that lies within traditional English folk music and which also includes those songs from the American South that are closely derived from the traditional English songs. But I'm seeing the category being populated by modern-day songs that have no obvious connection with the traditional genre. In these cases, the categorization is often being done only on the unsourced assertion that the song is a "murder ballad". And sometimes not even an assertion, but simply on the fact that somewhere in the article the word murder gets used (see, for example, Bohemian Rhapsody).

I suspect that many of these categorizations are being done simply because an editor wants to classify a song as being about a murder, only to find that there is no such category. They look under Category:Songs about crime, see sub-category Category:Murder ballads and simply assume that's where the article should go.

I propose to create a new category, Category:Songs about murders, as a sub-category of Category:Songs about crime. The existing Category:Murder ballads would then become a sub-category of the new category and would be populated only with songs for which there is a reliably-sourced association with the traditional genre (and, conceivably, this could include modern-day songs if an authoritative source makes that association).

My discussion with the other editor has been cordial and can be read here. The discussion has not led to a resolution and we agreed that a Request for Comments might be the best way to proceed. But before doing that, I think it will be helpful to get some informal opinions. I look forward to your comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, and can sympathize. I've had similar issues with the genre of space rock wrongfully being applied to any songs that allude to space in their lyrics, which is similarly not what space rock is meant to be as a genre... Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary and I have respectfully disagreed with each other in a series of amiable exchanges over the question of whether there is such a thing as a modern murder ballad or whether the genre only applies to traditional songs. I believe the former is the case and have numerous references to support my position:
The proposal to create the category Songs about Murders may have its merits, but as it relates to this discussion, I think it's an artificial solution. My position is that if contemporary murder ballads exist, they belong in the existing category. A new category should not be added just to conform to the view that only traditional songs qualify as murder ballads, especially if reliable sources hold otherwise. While some editors may have mistakenly categorized a few songs, that's not what raised the issue. What raised it was the additions I made over the past month that were disputed as murder ballads because they were not traditional songs. Furthermore, I wasn't looking for a murder category and then settled on Murder Ballads for lack of a more appropriate one. My entries (with one or two exceptions) were both purposeful and well sourced.
Just so everyone can understand specifically what this is about, I have applied or intend to apply the Murder Ballad category template to the following contemporary songs based on the links provided above and others I've come across from the same sources: "The Ballad of Hollis Brown", "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll", "The Death of Emmett Till", "Only a Pawn in Their Game", "George Jackson", "Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts", and "Hurricane" (all Bob Dylan); "Down by the River" and "Powderfinger" (both Neil Young); "Nebraska" and "Johnny 99" (both Bruce Springsteen); Sonora's Death Row (Keven Farrell); "Hey Joe" (Billy Roberts); "El Paso" (Marty Robbins); "Me and My Uncle" (John Phillips); "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" (Bobby Russell), "Shankill Butchers" (Colin Meloy/Decemberists), and "Bohemian Rhapsody" (Queen). All of these originated post-1960 and all of them have been cited as murder ballads, many by more than two sources. For example, I found the following sources for "Bohemian Rhapsody" which is widely regarded as both a ballad and rock opera: SingOut!, This Is Our Time: Everyday Myths in Light of the Gospel, No Depression, and New York Daily News.
The Dylan songs alone stand as proof that the murder ballad genre is alive and well and not just an artifact. Early in his career, Dylan was drawing substantially on traditional sources for not only his subject matter and the structure of his lyrics but also many of the melodies he used. "Hollis Brown", for example, is as poignant a murder ballad as any of its traditional counterparts, and the song even takes its tune from one of the most widely recorded traditional murder ballads, "Pretty Polly" (source: Greil Marcus). So if Dylan is doing this in the early 60s with "Hollis Brown", "Emmett Till", and "Hattie Carroll", setting out in new directions in the 70s with "Hurricane" and "Lily" and continuing to create ballads along these lines on his more recent album Tempest and if reliable sources describe the songs he's writing as murder ballads, who are we to claim the genre should be confined to works from earlier eras or that the songs must have a source tying them to traditional ballads?
I also dispute that this has anything in particular to do with the British Isles or the American South, since murder ballads sprang up throughout Europe over the centuries, as Francis James Child documents in his work Traditional British and Scottish Ballads. However, geographical origins are beside the point. The argument centers on whether the term murder ballads applies only to traditional songs. Despite extensive digging, I have not found a single source claiming such a thing. So if there is any unsourced assertion in play, it would be that one. Allreet (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In general, per WP:DEFINING, categories are only supposed to be applied when they're a primary characteristic of a song. Any primary characteristic should be mentioned in the article. Any content added to articles, per WP:V, must be directly verified by reliable sources. Therefore, putting it all together, any category essentially needs a reliable source to verify it. This should basically solve most scenarios. If a song has a reliable source calling it a murder ballad, add the category. If no source is found, the category should be removed or not added. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree entirely with User:Sergecross73 here, if there is not referred to by a substantive source as a murder ballad, then it's not. It really is that simple. It doesn't really matter whether I, or another editor disagrees with that source, does it?
I also find the whole 'songs about' categories a complete waste of time with editors checking a non-WP source, or on the strength of title, or a word contained in the lyrics will be added to a category, leading to a 3 minute song being added to a dozen 'songs bout' cats. I've even seen instrumentals categorised this way. Unless there is confirmatory information in the article this scattershot approach serves no purpose whatsoever. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Songs where someone kills someone else are not all murder ballads. Many songs mentioned above like Hey Joe and Bohemian Rhapsody are not even ballads by any definition I can find. A single mention of a killing in a song does not make it a murder ballad nor does it make it "about murder" nor is killing a defining characteristic of the song. Let's just apply "murder ballads" where we have a reliable source saying so.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Egghead06. "Murder ballad" is a specific genre, like "gangsta rap", some of which is actually hip-hop not rap (or a rap-and-something-else hybrid) and not written/performed by actual gangstas. Don't be too literal about genre names. Gothic rock had nothing to do with the Visigoths or Ostrogoths, nor with Gothic architecture, nor with Gothic horror fiction, though that is the chain of migration of the shift in meaning. Murder ballads are not ballads about murder, they're a particular kind of song about murder or other dark topics, done in a particular stylistic range, and may not actually be ballads in the technical musicography sense. So, yes, don't apply it if sources don't, and do apply it if they do (with attribution if the label isn't common for the piece in question). This isn't really any different from any other such question, like whether to label a claim pseudoscience, or whether to say Bernie Sanders is Jewish (and in what specific senses).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: Interesting that you want to only add this category for articles clearly sourced as such. If you're interested, you might want to see the section I just started at the bottom of this page, where I make a similar suggestion about being more accurate about how we categorize song articles by genre. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification of discussion of redirection of I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song)

There is a discussion at Talk:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) about a possible redirection of the article to Out of Our Heads --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

June Women in Red focus on singers

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rock's Backpages access now available through The Wikipedia Library!

Rock's Backpages is a database of more than 35,000 music news articles including reviews, interviews, and features, from the 1950s to the present day. They have agreed to provide free access to Wikipedia editors, and you can now sign up for access! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?

I would like to revisit this discussion: Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?

I still get very frustrated when I see songs incorrectly associated with specific genres. For example: Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of "American synthpop songs", "Dance-pop songs", and "Electropop songs", yet entries include "Cheek to Cheek" and "Nature Boy", which are definitely none of the aforementioned genres. I propose we stop associating a recording artists' collection of songs with specific genres. There was some support for this in the previous discussion, but discussion fizzled. Is an RfC needed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, Michig, Izno, Ojorojo, Koavf, Synthwave.94, and Explicit: Pinging you all as contributors to the previous discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support stopping without hesitation; it's often misleading as demonstrated above and too presumptuous. We shouldn't pretend like artist material can't vary. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree Why would songs be treated differently than albums? Albums are made of songs... Yes, a single song may not be synthpop but then just categorize that article as being a different genre. This honestly isn't that difficult to understand: the standard for categorizing an individual article about an individual song is just different than a category which may include a single song that isn't strictly that genre. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, we shouldn't associate incorrect genres with albums either. Simply put, Wikipedia should never be telling readers incorrect information. If we're going to categorize songs by genre, great!, but we shouldn't associate all songs by an artist with a specific genre. There are just way too many instances in which doing this is incorrect. You're referring to a "standard" and I'm trying to change that standard. Wikipedia can do better. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree My problem with the proposal is this: as an example, there are 178 "songs by artist" categories categorized in Category:American alternative rock songs encompassing over 3000 songs articles and redirects. Say 20% of those shouldn't be in this category anyway leaving about 2500 song articles to sift through because each one is now individually categorized in the American alt rock songs category. So first, the size of these categories will present a major problem for navigational purposes, but I also now have to figure out which songs might interest me simply by the title. I don't know who every artist is, but I know I can click on the artist's songs category to see what's in there and decide if want to navigate further, which is a lot easier than clicking through pages and pages of song titles. I believe if an artist is generally known for a specific genre of music, then categorizing their songs category as such is not a big deal. If a few songs (with articles) don't meet that so be it, the article can be placed in the appropriate song by genre category - why make a big deal about a few one-off songs? Diffusion is necessary here and this is one of the best ways to accomplish it. Just because Bon Jovi has released a few country songs doesn't mean we add in Category:Country rock songs to Category:Bon Jovi songs, but it shouldn't mean we should remove Category:American hard rock songs either. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, ok. I disagree. I think if an editor is viewing a subcategory marked as pop music, and they click on an entry only to find an article about a jazz standard, that's a problem. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
      • If it's the only article then yes then that would be a problem for a jazz song to be categorized as pop. But if it's 20 articles on pop songs with one jazz song which is also going to be individually categorized as a jazz song, then it's not a problem. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
        • So, then, what's the percentage of accuracy we're striving for here? 19 out of 20 is OK with you, but what about 13 out of 20? This is too subjective, and I don't see why we shouldn't strive to categorize with more accuracy. I'd even go further and suggest we should only categorize songs by genre as they are presented in the (presumably sourced) infobox and article prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
          • How does this benefit navigation? I go from say Category:R.E.M. songs to Category:American alternative rock songs because songs in that area interest me. If somehow I came across Too Much Passion in an undiffused scheme, I'm probably skipping over it and many other songs and never thinking twice about it. If I see Category:The Smithereens songs, I might click on that, see what other of their songs have articles, now go to Too Much Passion because I want to learn about a song I don't know too much about by an artist I have some knowledge of. Even if it's an artist I don't know, and they only have a couple of articles on their songs, I will find those songs because they are in a category of interest to me diffused in an understandable manner. A subcategorization scheme by artist (who, in my example, are identified as being alt rock bands from the US), allows me to quickly check out the songs from artists that I may or may not have heard of and decide the best way to further educate myself. If I'm forced to go through a long list of thousands of generic song titles I'm probably quitting the effort before I even begin. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I guess I'm just willing to sacrifice some navigation ease for the sake of accuracy. I simply don't think all entries in Category:R.E.M. songs should be described as "Jangle pop", when "Everybody Hurts" never mentions jangle pop. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
              • Hey, I'm all for removing very specific genre categories in the "songs by artist" subcats should they only apply to a few songs within the category (see my Bon Jovi example and country songs). But if an act releases an album in a one-off genre and a couple songs become notable from it, I don't think you then remove the act's primary genre category just because two songs don't apply. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Reminds me of the suggestion once made that because Russia extends into both Europe and Asia, Category:Russia should therefore not be categorized by either continent, lest someone then draw invisible lines to deduce that Vladivostok is in Europe... I think this is another such proposal that fails the "how would this help a reader, not a robot?" question. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • How does miscategorizing a song help a reader? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
      • It doesn't at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
      • It's not the individual song articles' categorization being discussed here, it's the container category for songs of artists who worked in multiple genres. So a reader would expect to find that container category to be connected to every relevant genre, and conversely to find songs by relevant artists when navigating from individual genres. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
        • My goal is not to connect containers categories with more relevant genres. The opposite, actually. I'm looking to reduce or remove connections between container categories and genres. We don't need to connect Category:Rihanna songs with more genres (side note: not all of her songs are contemporary R&B or dance-pop), but rather we should just keep to the verifiable categories, like Category:Barbadian songs and Category:Rihanna. These are not subjective, but the genre categories are subjective generalizations.
If recategorizing so many artist categories means parent categories like Category:Dance-pop songs will become overpopulated, then we can create Category:Dance-pop songs by American artists, or Category:2010s dance-pop songs. I don't think category overpopulation should be an argument for avoiding a restructure of how we categorize songs by genre. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"I'm looking to reduce or remove connections between container categories and genres." I know, I don't think that's a good goal. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Most artists are multi-genred, so in at least most cases, we shouldn't be categorizing all songs by a certain artist under a particular genre. Instead, we should go through them in a song-by-song basis. Especially for artists whom are very diverse. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Genre is in the ear of the hearer, it's been the cause of so many pointless and unnecessary edit wars and that's why it's under the artist and not the song. What is even more important, we are creating articles about songs, NOT recordings. AT the moment you want a genre category to be precise is the same moment that category becomes redundant. To prove my point here's a reggae version of Hey Jude, can I now categorise the song as reggae, because it is? Starcheer made some good observations, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support what Another Believer says. We should be looking to reduce or remove connections between container categories and genres. The way to avoid genre wars is to stop trying to force things into specific genres. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the articles that get the brunt of genre warring, especially the infoboxes. This would increase genre warring because the categories every individual song article rather than just a few categories will be subject to it. This will increase administrative maintenance and result in over-categorization of these articles. I'd rather have no "songs by genre" category scheme over the mess this will create. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
A solution that allows for both individual song categorization as well as by artist would be ideal. Maybe those that deal with categories all the time could weight in on this alternative. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?

Too often, "songs by artist" categories associate an artist's entire repertoire with one or more genres, even when song articles include no mention of those genres.

For example: Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of "American synthpop songs", "Dance-pop songs", and "Electropop songs", yet entries include "Cheek to Cheek" and "Nature Boy", which are definitely none of the aforementioned genres.

Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre? There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, but I'm submitting a request for comment to generate more discussion. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily how RfCs are intended to be used, but I will say for the record that I oppose pigeonholing artists into genres, with the possible exception of situations in which all of their notable works really do belong to a single genre. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Promotional singles

In light of recent disputes over promotional singles, I thought it'd be nice to establish community consensus on the matter in order to prevent edit warring in the future. Apparently some editors think I'm the only guy who's having issues with this, but I think we need to set up some kind of proper guidelines instead of relying on the misleading WP:SINGLE?. The following are some arguments editors have brought up in previous discussions regarding whether or not the song is a promotional single. Please also refer to Talk:Voicenotes, Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album) and Talk:Ariana Grande discography.

Please express your opinion below, thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In the discussions I've been in so far, and in the song article's I've created personally, it's been hard to make a conclusive call on this because the industry itself isn't making a call on it. If they can't, we can't. I generally just go by what sources generally say. If they typically call it a single, call it a single. If they just say "new song", then just call it a "song" or a "promotional single". Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree with this 100%. However, despite sources calling it a single, editors like MarioSoulTruthFan have pointed out publications' inability to distinguish between official singles and promotional singles, and that they use the term "single" to refer to all kinds of single. In situations like this, they tend to use radio as the sole determining factor. Hayman30 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The industry makes business decisions to create a buzz on particular charts. Depending on the reaction, they may change their strategy, so any designations are flexible. The popular music press is just reacting to what they see at a particular time. WP shouldn't be paying so much attention to the machinations of the record business. The song (music) itself is what will stand or not and what merits attention in an encyclopedia. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Noways, with streaming, the distinction between promo or official single starts to be next to impossible, unless the artist or said label release some statement regarding the matter to address the release of the song. Most of those points can be contradicted easily. However, I do agree that publications, even like Billboard, have some hard time distinguish a promotional single from an official single and just call it "single". The fact that a song was not promoted as a single really stands out, as the artists performs mostly the official singles and the promotional ones are just used to create some buzz and to have more pre-orders. All in all, and despite the fact that the radio argument can be contradicted, most (key word here) official singles do get added with official radio dates, unlike promotional singles which may get some spins but no official radio date for adds, unless it becomes a single later down the road, but that's a different story. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There is often gray area, but one thing I can safely say for certain is that promo singles (also called buzz singles) aren't released for paid purchase (whether physical or digital) unlike official. In some cases a promo is just released as part of an album pre-order, which doesn't give it something to stand out as a full-fledged single unlike a solo CD, solo cassette, or solo paid download. Music videos and cover art (or lack thereof) aren't definitive indicators of whether something is a single. There's also times when an artist and/or label will more explicitly confirm something is a full-fledged or promo release which greatly helps and I personally wish more people in the music business did, but it's better than never commenting on the matter at all. We additionally have times when a promo becomes an official single by being put up for paid solo purchase (not counting when the parent album and all its songs are on iTunes) or maybe a mainstream radio release but I certainly wouldn't say radio isn't the sole determining factor of whether something is a single. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Snuggums explained it the best way possible. Each and every release has to be treated differently. —IB [ Poke ] 14:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe we really do need some kind of more firm guideline on this. It seems like every time an artist comes out with a new song, there's a source calling it a single, and especially if that song underperforms commercially, we get editors calling it a promotional single and moving it to said section on a discography, sometimes edit warring to do so. It also seems to be a thing that if an artist has an album coming out and they've already released the first main song from it, every song they may release after that but still preceding the album is considered a promotional single. As in, editors seem unwilling to believe an artist can have more than one commercial single being given a push out at once, or that they could do a big rollout a week before an album. Some editors last year seemed to believe "Castle on the Hill" by Ed Sheeran was not actually a full single when released in tandem with "Shape of You" until it was given a push at top 40 radio in the US, as if the rest of the world doesn't exist or being sent to US radio is the way we determine singles. For instance, I heard it just as much on the radio here in Australia as "Shape of You" before said US top 40 radio release even happened. I sincerely believe radio's prominence is fading with each passing year, and in 2018 we should not be believing songs are only singles when sent to commercial radio anyway. It's also the case that sources don't really ever say "promotional single". This seems like a term that really came to prominence on Wikipedia, perhaps by fans who wanted to separate out their favourite singers' songs that did well and those that didn't. Just some more things to think about. Ss112 09:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In respect to country music, I believe that releasing a song to digital retailers/streaming services exclusively ahead of an album release while the lead single is at radio, those should be considered promotional singles or be categorized under 'other charted songs' depending on the article. Classifying them all as singles seems incredibly flawed because without a radio release, they don't carry the same weight at all, and in the country genre, radio is still the primary format defining something as a 'single.' It varies in other more mainstream genres with pull in other countries and where the lines blur with crossover play on multiple charts, but concerning country music I believe songs like the two recent pre-release songs from Dan + Shay's forthcoming album that were dropped to retail/streaming while they've been actively promoting "Tequila" as the 'single' from the record, should be classified separately and not lumped into their singles table with their radio hits. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I am with @CloversMallRat: in that the country industry treats it differently. "Tequila" is still actively climbing both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay, so there's no intent of pulling it. "All to Myself" and "Speechless" haven't made the Country Airplay chart at all, meaning that radio isn't playing them yet. The way the country industry works, there would be absolutely no reason to pull "Tequila" in favor of "All to Myself" and/or "Speechless" just because those two got a download spike for a week. Country radio artists don't drop multiple de-facto singles all at once like pop artists tend to do. There is precedent that promotional singles from country music artists are treated as "other charted songs", such as on Kenny Chesney discography. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I mean, what even is a "promotional single" if randomly dropping songs onto iTunes every few weeks before an album is out is on the same footing as a song being actively worked to the chief radio format for the artist? No one is going to consider "All to Myself" and "Speechless" the second and third singles from their record unless they actually get released to radio in that same order down the line, which they haven't yet. It's just factually incorrect to lump them together with "Tequila" just because random articles on the Internet throw around the term 'single' so frivolously. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Advice on Category:Songs by year

I'd like to find out if there's a definitive way for how we should approach the year category for a song. I always assumed we simply used the year of release, certainly for post-WW2 commercial recordings, but perhaps that's not the case. Under WP:SONG#Categories, it says: Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable: … 2. a subcategory of Category:Songs by year, using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released …

So, what does that mean if a song was recorded in 1967, appeared in a film that premiered in 1968, and was released on the soundtrack album in 1969? I'm currently in a disagreement with an IP user, 89.242.19.86, over the year category for songs released on the Beatles' Yellow Submarine soundtrack album, e.g. "All Together Now". The album certainly belongs in Category:1969 albums and the songs in question were first commercially released then. I can see a reasonable argument for the songs being Category:1968 songs, since they were available to cinema-goers in '68 (and, I assume, published that year also). The IP user wants to see them categorised as 1967 songs, though, for the year in which they were recorded. Has this sort of scenario been discussed before at all? All thoughts are welcome.

Taking this issue wider, given that the guidance allows for the year written, should the 1967 single "Strawberry Fields Forever" be categorised as a 1966 song, since it was written and recorded in late 1966? Is "Brown Sugar" a 1969 song, or a 1971 song? JG66 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion in 2015 that lead to the current wording. I think it makes more sense for older songs, like "Travelling Riverside Blues". Johnson recorded it in 1937, but it was not released until 1961. Categorizing it as a "1961 song" doesn't seem right. If it is clearly stated and referenced in the article that a song was essentially complete (written, published, performed, recorded, etc.) in or by an earlier year than its release, that year should be used. Perhaps the wording could be improved. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that's why we could have both Category:1966 songs and Category:1967 singles for something like "Strawberry Fields Forever". It certainly gets complicated when we are talking about the soundtracks for Yellow Submarine or, worse, Saturday Night Fever, where the songs come from several different years in the 1970s. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you are all overthinking this, the intent is 'Year of creation of song' but for practical reasons we cannot always reference accurately year of creation, so we must go for the second best thing, the year we can reference the song as existing. Having said that it really doesn't matter the format of how the song is brought to public notice, and I'd agree with the IP, if it first came out on film (i.e. film release), then that is the date, OTOH, somebody as well documented as the Beatles we can probable ascertain the date of the recording (or even writing) which would precede the film release. Singles are (or were) when the song came out on a piece of plastic and a song could have more than one year (many do) which is nothing to do with year of creation. Also it's not year of recording, no article should have 2 year of song cats. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I agree that examples like Johnson's "Travelling Riverside Blues" and loads of other songs from the pre-rock 'n roll era present some confusion – I mean, categorising by year of first commercial release wouldn't seem to make sense with such general wording as "Category:[Year] songs". From skimming through that 2015 discussion, I can see there were one or two editors who wanted to see category titles along the lines of "Songs first released in [year]". Have to say, that makes sense to me also, and the more precise category naming would alleviate the issue for "Travelling Riverside Blues" and the like. It's only when you click on the category link that the meaning becomes clear ("Songs written, or first published, recorded, released or performed in …"); otherwise, the noncommittal "Category:[Year] songs" is more likely to suggest, at least to me, when a song was released.
Anyway, I stand corrected with regard to those Yellow Sub songs, in light of how the issue is handled after that 2015 discussion. I'm not bothered enough to invest much time on this. But: a) I'm not convinced the meaning of each year category is sufficiently clear to readers (when surely it should be, at first glance); and b) although I've worked on hundreds of song articles here – all from the era of full, unadulterated commercialisation of the music industry, admittedly – this idea that a song's year is anything but the year of first release is news to me and, from what I've seen, it's definitely not being applied across the encyclopaedia. JG66 (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Quite. Pretty much why I don't like Category:XXX songs. Travelling Riverside Blues isn't a LZ song... --Richhoncho (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a similarity there at all. "Travelling Riverside Blues" is a Led Zeppelin song – they recorded and released a recording of it, and the article dedicates a section to their version. They didn't write the song, but then that's clear to readers because of the category "Songs written by Robert Johnson". With "[Year] songs" categorisation, though, there's no clarification until the reader clicks on the link. JG66 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Quite they recorded the song, it is *not* their song, or anybody else who might have recorded it. So in line with your thinking for year of song, perhaps it should be songs recordd by... Just a thought, neither changes are going to happen.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with possession – it's a song by the act. "Neither changes are going to happen"? That's somewhat presumptuous … JG66 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
1. XXX songs, suggests in English anyway, ownership, as in 'JG66 posts' and 2. I am not here to argue for changes and your belittling of somebody else's opinion is a, little uncalled for. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, in the case of 1), "JG66's posts" implies ownership. 2) I'm not belittling anyone else's opinion at all; I'd actually been picking up on that coming from you – that if someone doesn't see it the way you do, then they're wrong. I appreciate all the work you do on song articles, and I'm sorry we seem to have got our wires crossed here.
The point I've been trying to get across is that the criteria for the categories by year is not clear unless one follows the category link (which, I confess, I never had done before). And, as a result, what one then finds at the top of each category page – "Songs written, or first published, recorded, released or performed in …" – is not reflected in the year under which many song articles have been categorised. JG66 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
And not only did I not disagree with you, but raised another point. Perhaps you'd like to think of a better category name? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I think someone should request some ellaboration of the current policiy (Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable: … 2. a subcategory of Category:Songs by year, using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released …) because, indeed, a song can be recorded in, let's say, 1985 but released only in 1986. Maybe specifying in the article that a song was recorded by in XXXX and released in XXXX would help? Robertgombos (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have a problem with that wording – it seems clear that it's the first known year out of all those possible events (writing, performance, publishing, recording, release). It's the category name itself that's the issue, because, on the strength of how the year categorisation has been applied to many song articles here, I don't believe many editors view a 1985 song, say, as meaning anything other than a song released in 1985.
So, in reply to your question, Richhoncho, my thinking would be to use "[Year] songs" to apply only to when a song was released (because it seems that that's how the category's been imposed through much of the encyclopaedia). Or, if we're looking to avoid all ambiguity, "Category:Songs first released in [year]", which, I believe, was Rlendog's suggestion in the 2015 discussion. In other words, it's a case of accepting defeat on the question of how to correctly and unambiguously title the category with regard to the criteria "Songs written, or first published, recorded, released or performed in …" But I appreciate that I'm in the minority in terms of the current discussion, and I'm trying to live with that, even though, in my opinion, it's a way more problematic route. So, if we're viewing the year in terms other than the song's official release, the correct category name would seem to be "Category:Songs written, or first published, recorded, released or performed in [year]". That's not pretty – but at least it's clear to the reader (and to all editors). Without the long qualification or any other clue, I take the year to mean release, by default. For instance, although I know plenty about the Stones' recording activities from the period, I have no issue with "Hang Fire" being categorised as a 1981 song. Same with dozens of Dylan articles: "Ballad of Hollis Brown" is a 1964 song, but it was written and demoed in 1962, and recorded for its eventual [1964] release in 1963. Similarly, "Mr. Tambourine Man" is a 1965 song, even though Dylan began performing it live midway through '64. JG66 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are not happy with the year a song has been categorised, then please change it, using as we all should, information from the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(outdenting, as this is getting hard to follow, IMO) Purely from a perspective of how we looked at it in the radio industry (I spent sixteen years in the industry), we saw songs as being from the year that they were released for airplay. However, I can also see the valid argument for categorizing by the year in which the song was produced. So, while my personal music collection of about 110,000 songs is categorized by the year released for airplay, I think we should go with the production year, as long as it is sufficiently sourced. In the case of the Beatles' song in question, my suggestion would be to list it as a 1967 song, if there is a reliable source for it. Within the article, the specific situations regarding the other year(s) may be mentioned, but for the purposes of categorization, go with 1967. StrikerforceTalk 13:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on removal of succession boxes

After the RfC consensus to remove succession boxes from song and album articles, Ronhjones set up RonBot for the task. Now, less than two months after first being raised as an issue, record chart succession boxes have been removed from over 8,000 articles. If some were missed, please let us know. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lavender (Nightfall Remix)

Can somebody have a look over the above article and Lavender (BadBadNotGood song) see if there is any good reason why the two should not be merged pursuant to WP:SONGS? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't see a reason for two articles. Even with the remix and vocal, the presence of the original instrumental is still quite obvious in the second version. The official video is listed as "Snoop Dogg – BadBadNotGood – Lavender (Nightfall Remix)", so it doesn't appear that there is an attempt to separate SD's version from BBNG's. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Singles" with 3 songs

Hey there, may I ask if a 2/3-track release by an artist is counted as a single release or an EP release? Example here and here. Traditionally, I have always counted singles as a 1 track release (well, a single object is one object!), so I put all non-single release tracks in the EP section for the Andrew Bayer page. Not sure if this is right or wrong, would love a consensus on this. aNode (discuss) 07:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Traditionally, in the days when singles were physical product of some kind (vinyl, cassette or CD), the chart compilers had strict rules about what comprised a single and what comprised an EP. I imagine that these rules still exist in the digital age, but they will have changed to reflect the times, and I don't know what the current rules are. Richard3120 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Back in the day of physical singles, there were frequently "singles" that had multiple songs, or remixes/recut versions of songs, etc, and they were still called a single, so I don't see why it would be any different in the digital age. See 1990s singles like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "Tonight, Tonight (The Smashing Pumpkins song), for example. (Which were not rarities or anything, just the first two examples I found to illustrate this from my brief search.) So I'd go with whatever sources describe them as, regardless of number of tracks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I think in the UK, for example, a single had to have no more than three tracks, or a total running time of under 20 minutes - four or more tracks, or over 20 minutes, then it was an EP. But that's just one country's definition of a single - I'd go with what Sergecross73 says and stick with the sources. Richard3120 (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I've heard of similar rules regarding the difference between EP and album before too, but only as anecdotes, not in an official capacity, and honestly it seems like artists do whatever they want with that sort of thing nowadays. (Bad Witch) I think as far as Wikipedia goes, we should just stick to sources. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The qualifying criteria for the UK charts are here [8] – way too complicated, best stick to what the sources call the record. Richard3120 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight on how to classify singles, you guys! I have made the necessary adjustments to the mentioned artist page and will classify my content according to what a source says. aNode (discuss) 03:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:My Second Home

In the article about the music video for Tracy Lawrence's 1993 hit "My Second Home", it mentions Toby Keith as a "future superstar". While Keith's breakthrough didn't come until 1999's "How Do You Like Me Now?", he was already getting started in his career at the time Lawrence's "Home" video was released; Keith had his first number one hit with "Should've Been a Cowboy", and the follow-up, "He Ain't Worth Missing", would later go Top Five as well. However, Tim McGraw and Shania Twain would indeed later become "future superstars" in their careers.45.22.43.42 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"or the mere availability of the version as downloadable or streaming audio or video" added and removed from COVER

Personally, I think the phrase is in keeping with the spirit of the guideline. Not sure why it was removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As the guy who added it, I agree of course. Orojoro (who reverted the edit) and I had a brief discussion on my talk page, and I take his point that we don't necessarily want to have a lengthy list of what doesn't qualify (and I thank him for his courtesy for touching base with me prior to reverting), but I still think it's an improvement. Maybe we can reword it, but I think it's a point worth having. There are way too many edits where someone cites to a Youtube video as incontrovertible proof that the cover version exists without taking care that it meets the threshold for inclusion.
Perhaps a rewording is in order: "Mere evidence of the version's existence, such as a track listing, or a site from which an audio or video recording of the song can be purchased, downloaded or performed, is not enough to show that the version is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion." Or something. That's off-the-cuff, and can probably be improved.
But in my experience it happens so much that it's worth expressly addressing. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not an unreasonable addition to the guideline, but changes should be discussed for an agreement, so removal was the correct action. I am in favour of re-adding with perhaps adding a comment saying live performances are not notable for this guideline. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I also agree, and TJRC's suggestion of a rewording sounds like the best way forward. Richard3120 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen "mere availability" used as an argument, but the current wording could be improved (obviously, many aren't getting the idea). Would including some examples of "what does not constitute evidence of being noteworthy" help? Or is it instruction creep? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It’s kind of an variant of the “it exists so let’s mention” argument that people use all the time in their addition to Wikipedia’s ever-present “example bloat” issues. It’s definitely worth mentioning to some capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, how about something like:

Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. The mere availability of the version from a site from which an audio or video recording of the song can be purchased, downloaded, or played is not enough to show that it is suitable for inclusion. To meet the criteria, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book; album track listings, listings in discographies, chart listings, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. Cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with it, but I would make a full stop after "or music reference book". I did not notice the semicolon on my first reading and I'm not sure others will. Since it's a separate clause, we could easily make it a stand-alone sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed style for rhyme schemes

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

A proposal has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Rhyme scheme patterns, that Wikipedia adopt a consistent style for rhyme scheme notation. Scansion is also mentioned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COVERSONG violates notability guidelines

WP:COVERSONG as it stands is misleading and violates notability guidelines. Many who used it appear to think that notability guidelines apply to content in article (such as mention of covers within an article), which is a misunderstanding. Per WP:NNC - "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" except for some standalone lists. Notability guidelines are meant to determine if a subject warrants an article, they are not about the content of the article.

For example, two editors cited WP:COVERSONG and both misuse notability guidelines - FlightTime claimed that a bunch of charted and sourced cover songs are not notable [9], while SummerPhDv2.0 claimed that only versions which would meet WP:NSONG should be included [10]. FlightTime claimed that the sourced charted songs are not necessarily notable, which is accurate as far as WP:NSONG is concerned, which states that a charted song may be notable, not that it is notable. However WP:NSONG cannot and should not be used to determine if a cover version is notable enough to be included, because it is only meant for determining the notability of a subject of an article, not its content.

The use of notability criteria by editors to delete song covers is wrong in a number of ways, not just violating the notability guideline, but also ignoring other guidelines that serve as a balance when determining notability, for example WP:NEXIST which states that "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable", and WP:BEFORE that requires those who want to delete article to check first whether sources exist in search. By demanding sources that address the subject as the main topic (which is not even demanded by WP:GNG) must be given in article, deleting and not checking, they are actually demanding even more stringent criteria than what's in notability guidelines. The idea that a single sentence entry in an article requires more stringent criteria than the article itself is patently absurd and defies all common sense.

WP:COVERSONG should therefore be rewritten or if not, then it may be deleted as it is a misuse of the notability guidelines. As noted in WP:Notability, whether something is worthy enough to be mentioned in an article "is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies", therefore it should be rewritten with that in mind. A cover with large number of sources may warrant one section, while those with fewer sources may be limited to a sentence or two. A charted cover song with source should be considered acceptable, as is a song discussed in reliable sources. While the concern is that an article may overflow with random covers, judicious application of a few existing policies and guidelines should be sufficient to keep those random entries in check, for example, the requirement for verifiability in reliable sources per WP:V would eliminate a lot of the random covers. . Hzh (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just transclude the appropriate section of NSONG into COVERSONG. That would eliminate the recurring perception of those who wish to ignore COVERSONG that it is somehow a violation to use the test from a notability guideline elsewhere for other purposes.
COVERSONG essentially says two things: 1) If a version of a song meets NSONG by itself, it should have an article. 2) If articles for more than version should exist, merge them into one (under most circumstances).
COVERSONG currently excludes, for example, a version with trivial bare mentions in sources about topics other than the song, requiring instead substantial coverage in sources about the song.
Jane Blow's recording of the "Star Spangled Banner" is mentioned in one sentence in a source about Blow. Also mentioned in the same article in single sentences are Blow's hatred of meatloaf, her townhouse in West Philadelphia and that she worked for five years as an architect. That coverage is not enough to mention her in meatloaf, townhouse, West Philadelphia or architect because its demonstrated importance to those topics is tiny. Similarly, her recording of the "SSB" shows very little significance to that song. Listing ever cover of that song that is mentioned in any source would generate a very long indiscriminate list of people who used it to pad an album, sang at a baseball game or used it to open concerts.
Sources about Joe Cocker will certainly mention (or, more likely, discuss in detail) his cover of "With a Little Help from My Friends". The detailed discussion in those sources shows the song is relevant to Cocker and should be included in Joe Cocker. Sources about the song will likely discuss Cocker's version in meaningful detail, indicating the song's article should include Cocker's cover.
Some songs are covered by thousands of artists people reading about the albums those covers were on should find it in the track listing. If sources on the album discuss the song, the album's article should probably discuss it (cf. WP:WEIGHT). If sources about the artist, record label, tour, year in music, instrument, producer, studio, city it was recorded in, etc. discuss the version in detail, articles on those topics might (to some extent). That an article about a artist briefly mentions songs, record labels, tours, years, instruments, producers, studios, cities, etc. it does not follow that the artist should be included in 1979, New York City, etc. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You are saying that NSONG should be used when I specifically said that its use violates notability guideline when used for content, the only difference being that you are pretending not to use it. Makes absolutely no sense. Hzh (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
*Historical Note: There used to be different articles for the same song because it had charted by different artists. A group of us thought an article about a song should cover all aspects of that song and not have separate articles, they are *song* articles. This was covered in NSongs "with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." (Long discussion/debate somewhere if somebody wants to find it). So far so good.
Because some editors were arguing the point, and because many song articles had meaningless long lists of cover versions played on wet Wednesdays in Wherever by unknown bands coversong was devised, not to re-write existing WP guidelines, but to clarify and support other WP guidelines and how it appears in songs.
The real problem is that every editor has their favourite acts and want to add every burp, fart and performance related to that artist. Whatever is decided here, we need to ensure some kind of relevance to the article. A cover by a relative unknown is NOT relevant for an encyclopedia.--Richhoncho (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
A lot of the trivial covers can be eliminated by simply applying WP:V. Existing policy such as WP:NOTEVERYTHING also can be used to removed trivial ones even if sourced - I have no problem with discounting "album track listings, listings in discographies", etc., and we can limit entries to charted covers (once charted, they cannot be considered trivial) and those with multiple mentions in reliable sources. What is unacceptable however is to apply notability criteria for an entire article to a single sentence. Hzh (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
"Multiple mentions in reliable sources" is considerably different than "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song". The first would include virtually every performance of the "Star Spangled Banner" at every Major League Baseball game, "Amazing Grace" at notable people's funerals, "Happy Birthday to You", etc.
Had it not charted, Whitney Houston's "Star Spangled Banner" would still pass COVERSONG and be included. Opening this up to bare mentions would add several dozen performances a year to that article. If someone wanted to, they could spend a few hours adding hundreds of them from the past several decades, all failing COVERSONG, but passing your suggestion. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If there are too many versions mentioned so that it skews the article, then WP:DUE will come into play, ditto WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If necessary, someone can always split it off into a separate article if these versions are considered significant enough. There are very few songs that would have such problems. I'm not sure why you mentioned Happy Birthday to You, half the performances given there can be deleted for being unsourced (as can many versions mentioned in The Star-Spangled Banner). Hzh (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
SONGCOVER does not state that in order to be included in the parent song article that all cover versions/renditions must be themselves notable or must meet NSONG. The language specifies two alternatives ("only if at least one of the following applies"): 1) "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" – OR – 2) "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS". SONGCOVER is meant to prevent multiple articles for the same basic song (composition) and to prevent song articles from being filled up with unimportant or miscellanous covers/renditions (performances). This comes up so often that obviously the wording needs to be improved, but the basic ideas are sound. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how NSONG has any relevance that it needs to be mentioned. If multiple articles on the same song is an issue, then simply states that it is something that should not be done. Mentioning NSONG simply creates the impression that a cover needs to satisfy NSONG (as can be see by both the editors I mentioned who appeared to believe that notability is a requirement for covers). The other criterion sounds like you require a source that deals only with the song, and as I've mentioned, this is not not even something required by WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree on both points: mentioning NSONGS causes more problems than it helps and as long as the cover is discussed by a RS (not just listed or trivial mention) it should be OK. I suggested the following addition in the discussion above: "To meet the criteria, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book. Album track listings, listings in discographies, chart listings, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy" (added Gorlitz's punctuation). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Surely a chart entry is in itself something noteworthy as it suggests that the cover has achieved some level of popularity? Hzh (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Now there are so many charts that an entry doesn't carry the weight that it once did (take a look at Billboard charts). If indeed a rendition is popular, it should be recognized by some commentary in a RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
True in some sense, but a chart entry does not merely confirm a song's existence, but gives some indication of its popularity. Some charts will always be significant, for example the main national singles chart, and in the case of Billboard, some of the genre charts. Hzh (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
At that point I imagine we'd need to establish some test for which charts are significant and which are not... DonIago (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
No, No, No, there are songs which are notable that have been around longer than charts and have never charted. Charts are merely a way of ascertaining notability, Not notability itself. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The significance of one does not diminish the other, i.e. a cover song that has charted does not diminish the significance of an older version that has never charted but nevertheless is still important in the song's history. For example Soggy Bottom Boys' version of Man of Constant Sorrow versus Stanley Brothers' version, the latter being the inspiration for the former. Hzh (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

With only a chart listing, what is there to write about? "So & So's cover of 'X Song' reached number 39 on the Adult Top 40 airplay (spins) chart on April 1, 2018" doesn't provide encyclopedic content. If a rendition is going to be mentioned, it is more meaningful to know how it compares, what inspired it, etc. Again, if it's important, some RS probably has written about it. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The times I have said this, thanks, User:Ojorojo, this is why the articles are on songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You can say it, but it doesn't really explain why an important measure of success can be ignored. You might as well argue that a significant award can be ignored because it doesn't tell you anything meaningful about the writing of the song. It is a complete non-sequitur. There are different aspects to the significance of a song, and chart entry is one way you can look at it, and there is no reason to exclude it if you prefer another way of looking at a song. Hzh (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Because a chart entry is an indication of its popularity, which is one aspect of its significance. Hzh (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I see a valid point that the WikiProject guidance (which is not a policy or a guideline) may be overly strict in its requirement that the cover be able to stand as its own article before inclusion, even in the covered song's article. It strikes me as questionably inline with WP:WEIGHT, because one RS writing about the cover is probably still worthy of inclusion, even if that inclusion is a bulleted list of groups covering this song because the RS lacks information particularly distinct from the main topic's encyclopedic content, whereas leaning on a notability requirement for multiple RSs is not how we decide what should be in an article. It does, however, remind me of how sometimes we limit lists to only separately-notable list items. Some thoughts. --Izno (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Bare mentions are what we are talking about here. The song that generated this section, "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" was performed in concert by Joan Baez, for which the LA Times, in an article about the concert, gives us one sentence. Another reliable source, Allmusic, lists several hundred other versions. WP:WEIGHT is not helpful on this point, stating that our coverage should be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If a bare mention is good enough in one article, it should be good enough in all of them. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Given that trivial listing may be excluded, what exactly is your point about hundreds of other versions? If you can find hundred of other mentions of these covers in LA Times, then fine, otherwise what you are saying is irrelevant. You haven't paid any attention to what anyone said, just keep saying things that don't make any sense. Hzh (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I am saying that a single sentence about a song in an article about a concert is trivial, LA Times or not. A single sentence about a song in an album review is similarly trivial. One sentence is not "discussion". - SummerPhDv2.0 19:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I've adapted Ojorojo's suggestion and added other bits, the significant change being the charting part because we cannot have a criterion that is more stringent than WP:NSONG (it would defy common sense otherwise) -

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article but not in a separate article. To meet the criteria, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book. Album track listings, listings in discographies, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. A cover is assumed to be noteworthy for inclusion if it has an entry in a significant national music chart. Treatment of a cover should be proportionate to its significance.

What constitutes a significant national music chart? DonIago (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it can be one of the acceptable charts mentioned in Wikipedia:Record charts. There are a lot more Billboard charts there, personally I would prefer to limit them to some of the major charts (hence "significant"), but listing them individually might be excessive. Hzh (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Still have a problem with charts. Would you provide a few covers/renditions that appeared in "significant charts" that have no commentary in a review, artist bio, or music reference book. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I suppose you can find this in many song articles, but for an example of a song with numerous covers, see Unchained Melody, one of the most covered songs (over 1,500 recordings). You get a wide range of covers noteworthy for different reasons, some covers are described in detail, some without any details apart from a simple chart entry (I just did a quick search for Joe Stampley's version, but I can only see sources that simply state that he recorded the song and that it charted). Based only on the sources given, I would delete Bing Crosby's version (trivial listings), otherwise most seem fine. I don't see any serious issue with the article overall for a song with so many covers. Hzh (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Several of the "Other" entries only have a chart ref and maybe one for an album, but no refs for the accompanying text. It seems that many of these are because an editor seeks notice for the artist, not that the rendition is important for the artist nor for the parent song (Stampley's version is at number 45 of 60 of his Billboard hits). Benson and Manilow reached the 20s on the Adult Contemporary airplay chart – is that "significant"? "Yesterday" takes a different approach – rather than burdening the article with long lists, it includes referenced statements about its popularity. This is a more encyclopedic approach and less likely for POV pushing and OR. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hardly true. Given that there are so many versions of Yesterday, and the article barely mentions them, I'd say that the article does not appear to be proportionate. It gives versions by the Beatles that are not sourced, and mentions a version by Bob Dylan that's not even released. That is truly odd. The lead claims a large number of covers, but readers won't have any idea if there are any significant covers by other artists (apart from Matt Monro it seems) because the article won't tell them. Personally I don't remember any significant covers of Yesterday, and that article won't help at all, the large number of covers appears to be almost entirely meaningless. Unchained Melody on the other hand tells me how the many covers are significant, for example in the career of musicians who recorded them and even music mogul like Simon Cowell, or how even minor versions like Elvis Presley's are noteworthy. It gives a more rounded picture of the song's significance. Hzh (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

* Oppose Adding artists who have no reliably sourced discussion in the context of the artist's work or the parent song does not add useful information to a song article – it's just name dropping. No convincing examples have been presented and "significant national charts" is wide open to interpretation. Less information is preferable to bloated "Other versions" sections. Other websites are better at handling covers, such as AllMusic[11] or second hand songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The "significant national charts" part is simply just shortening WP:NSONG that says "national or significant music or sales charts". I can always use the same wording if you want (unless you object to WP:NSONG as well). If you want a more stringent criterion than WP:NSONG, then you would have to explain how that can be logical. I see Yesterday as a problem article that does not deal with covers adequately, while Unchained Melody is far more rounded and informative. The entry for LeAnn Rimes is mostly about the charts, but that is enough to show its popularity. Chart entries are not mere numbers (or name-dropping) but tells us something about the popularity of a version. It is odd to deny something very fundamental about how popularity or success is assessed in the music industry. Hzh (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Second proposal

I've made a little adjustment to the chart part to try to define what is "significant" for charts (added in a note). I've also added a bit about awards. If anyone feels that the wording is wrong, or has a better idea, then do give your alternative proposal. Note however that it is unreasonable to suggest a criterion that is more stringent than WP:NSONG, although personally I think NSONG itself could be made clearer. It is also unreasonable to suggest that a chart entry is trivial - it is simply wrong to deny something fundamental about how success or popularity is measured in the music industry, and to do so would be pushing a POV.

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article and not in a separate article. To meet the criteria for inclusion, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book. Album track listings, listings in discographies, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. A cover may be included if it has won or been nominated for a major music award,[1] or has an entry in a significant music chart.[2] Treatment of a cover should be proportionate to its significance.Hzh (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Examples of major awards are Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award
  2. ^ A significant chart would be the principal singles chart of a country or one of the major Billboard charts such as Hot 100, Hot Rock Songs, Hot Country Songs, and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs.

show me heaven song

On the Wikipedia site, it says that Maria McKee wrote the song, and that it debuted as a sound track in 1990. I'm a big fan of hers btw. It also says that other artists subsequently covered it. but those dates start in like 1995. So when did it really first come out? thanks Zoe

I'm not sure what you're asking, Zoe. Everything in the Wikipedia article is correct – in the 1980s McKee was the leader of a band called Lone Justice, before she went solo. She co-wrote "Show Me Heaven" for the soundtrack of the 1990 film Days of Thunder, starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The song reached no. 1 in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands, and since then it has been covered by many other artists – of course the cover versions are going to be recorded after the original song. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_18&oldid=1212163189"