This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is a current drive to add short descriptions to most WP articles, including songs. While many details are still being worked out, a short description will be the one of the first things readers will see when they do a search. Some points in WP:SHORTDESC#Content and Template:Short description#Usage include:.
The short description will be the first point of contact for many readers, so it should be readily comprehensible.
The short description should focus on distinguishing the subject from similar ones rather than precisely defining it.
The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary.
The short description is intended to be used in conjunction with the article title, and should be written as though it follows the title. Duplication of information already in the title is to be avoided.
If the article title alone is sufficient to ensure reliable identification of the desired article, a null value of {{Short description|none}} may be used. However, this will not override the descriptions from Wikidata.
Also "The short description is part of the article content, and is subject to the standard processes for content decisions, including but not limited to Bold–Revert–Discuss and the rules on edit warring and vandalism. Short descriptions are subject to many Wikipedia standards of content". As with many features, there is the potential for vandalism, so changes to short descriptions should be monitored. More info is included at WP:WikiProject Short descriptions.
I'm not sure how to approach this, but the quote from Saskia Postema about Louis being dedicated to social justice issues is unsubstantiated. While he is certainly charitable with regard to children with illnesses, this would not be classified as "social justice issues." Furthermore, Postema was a contributor to Huffington Post, which is a position that doesn't exist any longer. It was unpaid, unmoderated, and anyone could create an account and upload content. I would like to either remove the reference to her review or further qualify her POV as a fan, not a "reviewer." Please advise. --Sskywalkerr75 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Users deciding that a song only "promotes" one album despite it being featured on several
Wanted to bring this to the WikiProject's attention and get some opinions on this practice. It seems like users are picking and choosing which album a song promotes, based on what they think; even though it clearly appears on multiple albums. Most recently I've seen this happen is the exclusion of "Sunlower" from the infobox of Hollywood's Bleeding, because users think it doesn't "promote" the album. Another example is "Better" not being included on Free Spirit. Also see, "Meant to Be"/Expectations and "Change"/Fearless. Personally I don't agree with these exclusions, since the SPS equivalents of these songs count towards all albums they are included on. If the songs weren't "promoting" both albums, then they wouldn't be included on them. It's deceptive to insinuate otherwise.--NØ09:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see emphasizing one release over the other due to what sourcing says, and/or the timeframes of releases, but I can’t see omitting one of the releases entirely though. Sergecross73msg me02:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Any more feedback about this? Several songs are being excluded from Liam Payne's upcoming album LP1's infobox as well. I find it highly controversial that Wikipedia users have the power to list a flop single as the lead of the album when several prior hits are included on it as well. There is no logical reason to assume Payne wouldn’t want his hits listed as singles from the album and would rather begin the era with a flop song.—NØ15:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Er, nobody was intentionally excluding songs from the infobox of LP1. I was going to add them but I was in the midst of doing other things and did not have time to find all the release dates for the singles. I had already added them to the lead by this time as well—it would seem a bit strange to note songs are singles in the lead but then have different rules for the infobox. Ss11218:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho is right, the template doesn't exist, but if it fails WP:COVERSONG it should just be cut out straight away, rather than tagging it for someone else to do at a later date. If it's for the whole section there's {{Template: Unreferenced section}}. Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If it isn't addressed after a while, I delete it (to meet SONGCOVER needs more than a source that shows it exists). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Should promotional singles be included in Infoboxes?
The reason I am asking this is because recently, Speed Demon and Speechless have been removed from the infoboxes of Bad and Invincible pages, this has stirred up some controversy, so I'm wondering if we should or shouldn't be putting promotional singles in infoboxes.
If it wasn't available for public sale, then no, I don't believe they should be included in infoboxes. Promotional singles were sent out all the time to radio stations back in the 1980s and 1990s for all artists, but they were never part of an artist's official singles chronology. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Songs
There are songs missing in here such as: Dear Diary, Before The Goodbye, Let Me Be, Lonely, Shadow, The Hook Up, Early Mornin', Freakshow, Hold On Tight, Til It's Gone, Clumsy and Don't Hang Up
Jorgescobalce (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Jorgescobalce
Are you talking about the various Britney Spears songs? They probably don't have their own articles because they are non-notable album tracks and do not have enough sources to create a substantial article - see WP:NSONG for the requirements that likely make a song notable enough for its own article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
"Singles" that promote a film
Are "singles" that appear on the soundtrack of a film (or promote a film) and has no radio release date considered promotional singles, simply because it promotes a film? I have seen an editor move a song from the single section to the promotional single section of a discography page giving this reason in the edit summary. CountyCountry (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Single without "original" version and how to classify music video
Normally we expect that "official" music video include original/radio version of released single or atleast it's adjusted video version based on radio/original version, eventually it's same video adjusted to some remixes from that single. We also expect that radio version is a "original" one (in some cases both "original" and "radio" are released but often these terms are just interchangeable). In case of Alina's single "When You Leave (Numa Numa)" has no original/radio version and include remixes only. This first release only includes "When You Leave (Numa Numa) (Basshunter Radio Mix)". 2009 release include Basshunter and Jason Nevins radio edit and their extended versions. Later release include Cahil and Rad remixes. Music video for this single was made and it's credited as "Basshunter Remix" or "Basshunter Radio Mix". Eurohunter (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
How music video for "When You Leave (Numa Numa)" should be credited in videography of Alina and Basshunter? I think it can be included in Alina's videography without addional notes but how it should be classified in case of Basshunter videograpy? "Music videos for remixes/other artists"? "Remix videos" also doesn't looks to fit correctly as includes his videos adjusted to remixes by other artists. Eurohunter (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Why there is single without original version? What it depends on there is original version? Artists non-producers has their studio producers yet which are producing their original versions. Eurohunter (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Is Beatport an acceptable source for the BPM and key of a song?
I haven't been able to find an acceptable source for the key/BPM for the song "Saving Light" and the only source I had considered to use to prove this is the official release on Beatport. I'm not totally sure if Beatport is an acceptable source for the tempo and key if there are no other available sources, especially if it is a good source to use for a good or featured article. Micro (Talk) 04:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Beatport isn't considered a reliable source, as the content is usually uploaded by the DJs/artists themselves, so it's effectively whatever they say it is, it's not an independent source's opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: It's technical non-controversial information so what is the problem? I belive information about BPM provided by artists don't need to be somehow published for example in an interview on some music site because there is no difference. Someone would think like that but source is still the same. Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It’s generally not difficult to find either of those in third party sources when dealing with a notable subject. What Izno states is extremely common inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. It’s more surprising you haven’t come across this before... Sergecross73msg me00:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
What of it? It’s acceptable to include in limited capacity per WP:PRIMARY, but that doesn’t change that third party coverage is often acceptable inclusion criteria to including info in an article. Like everything on Wikipedia, you have to keep in mind that while sourcing is mandatory, it’s not necessarily mandatory to include everything that can be sourced. Sources only confirm that it’s eligible for inclusion. Sergecross73msg me02:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Release dates are sourced by multiple sources. They're usually even correct.
Credits are sourced, in print, on the album's liner notes and usually other sources.
The tempo is not. Key is not. Many songs modulate. I know of several songs where the verses are in one key while the chorus is in another. This is a a can of worms that is unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
For most readers, "moderate" or "fast" would have more meaning than bpm (see Tempo#Basic tempo markings for comparisons). Key and time signature may be useful to note for major vs. minor and less common 3/4, 5/4, etc. RS are more difficult to find for popular music and many songbook/sheet music collections are incorrect. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Historically, click-tracks and metronomes were not used and the actual BPM drifted in a song. And descriptive words do not work for songs that change their feel midway between songs. The whole thing is problematic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think BeatPort is an acceptable primary source for a limited use on things like BPM which is a bit of relatively uncontroversial information. @Izno: Cd releases are extremely limited for individual songs now and although they are more common for albums there is an element of accessibility to consider e.g. you can't verify the source without purchasing the CD so we should use a range of references not just rely on ones that require purchases → Lil-℧niquԐ 1- { Talk } -16:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Creating redirects to album tracks
There appears to be a few editors who are creating redirects for every track on an album - often without waiting for the album to released or the actual tracks are confirmed. In addition to this, some editors are creating 3 redirects for each song (when available, for instance, White Mercedes, White Mercedes (Charli XCX song), and White Mercedes (song) - all redirects to Charli (album) (these are merely the last example I have seen and I am not aware of which editor has done this). Should it continue, should alternate titling be permitted or any other opinions, guys? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you clarify, are you questioning the creation of song redirects in general, or just those for unreleased albums? I am guilty of creating song redirects, but I find this helpful in case people are searching specific song titles. Certainly not pointing any fingers here, but I know User:Ss112 does the same, so pinging them in case they care to share any thoughts as well. ---Another Believer(Talk)21:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
At the moment I just want to get the conversation started - and see if there is any agreement here. By all means add anybody into the discussion who might have an interest. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen such work and would rather that it not happen, but when I try to get the redirects deleted, the discussion is closed because redirects are WP:CHEAP.
If it were just for singles that fail notability criteria or are never likely to contain more than peak chart listings, I would have no problems, but agree that most songs don't need a redirect. I'm fine to automate the process of creating thousands of CHEAP song title redirects to make that point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, in the end, we don't know which tracks are going to end up being notable from the album at the start of an album cycle, especially in the age of streaming and availability of album tracks to listen to individually. Also, I don't believe redirects are solely for things that may turn into articles—they can be valid search terms, and album tracks fall into this category. As Another Believer pointed out, they can be considered helpful as readers and other editors do search specific song titles. In addition, it has been said at RfD discussions that one may not know the "correct" amount of disambiguation to use to search for a song title. For the record, I don't create redirects for tracks that haven't been confirmed by a reliable source and I don't think most would argue that it's acceptable to actually do this—obviously there are occasions where sources end up being wrong or songs don't end up on an album, but that's the exception. I really don't think this practice is going to stop—this is not the first time this has been brought up and I'm sure it won't be the last. I know there are many editors who don't bother with this, but I don't see an issue. (No need to ping me with potential replies; I've had a number of discussion–arguments about this in the past and I don't really wish to have more.)Ss11200:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
You know that the search tool can actually find titles inside of articles. At one time "valid search term" meant something; it no longer does. For instance: the obscure album "Kalhöun. I look for "Note to Anna", without the quotes, and it is found (about a hundred items in, but still found). With quotes, it's the only result returned. "Tracking the Amorous Man" is found as the first item even without quotes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Besides the very valid points about the improvements to search functionality which Walter raises, there is an issue of 'importance' and taking the White Mercedes example, there are 3 and possibly 4 songs with that title, there is also a book called The White Mercedes and I daresay other examples. Song titles are rarely unique, so in this limited example, where should 'White Mercedes' really point? Does it really take 3 variants? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this standard practice? There is no problem in creating redirects for confirmed song titles, as they are very likely to be search terms and/or become notable soon. Redirects from excess disambiguation are not detrimental either. As such, I see no reason we shouldn’t be "permit[ted]" to create them.—NØ10:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
No, not standard practice, merely practiced by a few editors. Also the creation of multiple redirects for the same song appears to frowned upon according to WP:TITLE which says a title should be concise enough to differentiate between subjects, so, if, White Mercedes is sufficient, all other variants are unnecessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
It strikes me as a waste of time, especially for these non-single, deep album cuts with lots of disambiguation. But I guess what harm does it do if these people are creating things that will largely never be seen by 99.9% of readers, and technically aren’t wrong? I don’t do it, nor would I ever encourage anyone to do it though. But it seems few are affected. Sergecross73msg me14:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Completely agree with Richhoncho about SS112 and Another Believer's album track redirects - it is actually directly unhelpful to readers because in a large amount of instances these editors creating (song) redirects for albums by their favourite artists are missing other songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:. I don't think it is helpful mentioning particular editors, there are others, and there are the copyists, who do the same thing for their own favourite album (some of which are so NN they are quickly deleted). The bottom line is should it become standard practice or not? Doing it because I like it is not the WP way, that's why we are aiming for a consensus here.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho, I agree, no need to call out specific editors. I've acknowledged I create song redirects sometimes, but I would not consider this a primary activity of mine and plenty of other editors do the same. I'm not understanding how the redirects are problematic when they are possible search terms. If some editors find it a waste of time, so what? It's not your time being "wasted". ---Another Believer(Talk)13:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I can give you a practical example of why the practice is detrimental. There is a redirect created for One Night Lover recently created to R.O.S.E. (album), however, there are at least 3 other songs on albums with articles on WP, one of which looks like it might even warrant an article. A disambiguation page would be far more beneficial, covering the specific title, similar titles, than forceably sending readers in a predetermined direction. And, as has already been pointed out, without any redirect the searcher will be able to see all the alternatives. Let the search tool do its job without throwing redirects in its way to stop it working. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Readers can still use the search function even when a redirect exists. To be quite honest, I don't see this thread ever achieving broad enough consensus from enough editors (as it would need) to achieve anything. Besides, nobody here can decide that editors cannot create redirects for songs, because if editors in all other areas of Wikipedia can create redirects, why shouldn't music editors be able to? Even if by some miracle—to those who don't like that song redirects exist—that was the consensus achieved, you're still going to get editors who don't know about the consensus creating redirects. You can't stop the practice, and you can't possibly nominate every song or album redirect made by every editor for deletion like this is some sort of Neelix's-ridiculous-redirects situation, because I don't think most editors would be inclined to agree they're not valid like Neelix's certainly weren't. If you don't like song redirects, don't interact with them, don't add categories to them, don't create talk pages for them. Pretty simple really. (Also, have to say, I laughed at "editors creating (song) redirects for albums by their favourite artists"—as if most of the redirects editors make are for artists they're fans of. I know for myself that is certainly not the case.) Ss11222:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I don’t care much...but the scenario you present is laughable. Creating redirects is not a casual, passerby activity. Most casual readers probably don’t even understand the concept. Most of the excessive redirect creators are prolific, long term editors, and if they kept going after there was a consensus, they’d keep being blocked, and 90% of it would stop. Again, I’m not saying it needs to be stopped...but the premise that it can’t be substantially lessened is laughable. Sergecross73msg me23:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: What "scenario"? I never said it couldn't be lessened—but I don't really think it needs to be, nor that it's going to be. You clearly aren't seeing the amount of editors who see others making redirects starting to do it themselves. Not "laughable" when I'm seeing it happen all the time. And good luck with there ever being a consensus, as I said. Blocking editors for making song redirects...talk about laughable scenarios. Ss11221:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I think where it is problematic is directing X (song) to one favourite artist's songs - have seen some particularly bad examples where every generic title on an obscure rapper's non-notable album was directed to it. And almost every single damn song was not unique to that album. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, your opinion on what is obscure has been proven to be problematic in the past. You seem to think any artist you aren't aware of, even those that have US No. 1 albums, is "obscure". If you have such a problem, make some more disambiguation pages out of them. You seem to be quite good at finding them. Editors are not going to do 20 minutes of research to find every little last song in music history that may share the same title. Ss11221:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I know I'm late on this, but the only thing I object to is the categorization of such redirects or we end up with things like this: Category: A Day to Remember songs. Such categories should just contain the songs that have actual articles or at least some substance about the song in the target article and not those whose only mention is in the track listing. As a reader, it's quite aggravating. The redirects are fine in and of themselves as possible search terms (though certainly not always necessary and a bit overkill when every possible disambiguated title is created). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on this – I know I leave the categories in when I create redirects, but only because when I've removed them in the past, another editor usually re-adds them. But some consensus on this would be helpful. Richard3120 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
What are criteria to add certain song to the list? Cause song has one different sample, vocals change, title change, different language or something other? Summarizing I could ask question when a new song begins? Eurohunter (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: It will be super complicated, few different examples below:
"Boten Anna" (2006 April longer version from Welcome to Rainbow) "Boten Anna" (2006 May single release) → "Now You're Gone", there is also German version of "Boten Anna" → 2009 "Al final" use "Boten Anna" instrumental and is sang by Dani Mata (it's credited as "Basshunter feat. Dani Mata")
"I Can Walk on Water I Can Fly" → "I Can Walk on Water" → "Walk on Water" (all has different instrumentals, the last one is the most different)
"Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" (2006 single) → "DotA" (2007 new single version) → "DotA" (2008 album release, which has partially higher note and has certain melody pattern from the start in comparision to 2006 version) → "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" in official video is also different, has addional part with bassline
"Welcome to Rainbow" (2006) → "Welcome to Rainbow" (2008 release has additional samples and few different vocals)
"Mellan oss två" → "Between the Two of Us" (translated title, different melody, same lyrics)
"Hallå där" → "Hello There" (identical, translated title for later release of LOL, same with "The Beat" and "Evil Beat")
"Fest folk" (2004) → "Festfolk" [2006 Remix] (why it's remix? 2006 "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" and 2007 "DotA" has the same situation)
"Camilla" (2008 english version, "Camilla" (2009 swedish version with quite different vocals and instrumental
"I'm Your Basscreator" (2006) → "Bass Creator" (2008) (just include additional lyrics)
I still don’t really understand the question. Are you asking if multiple recordings of the same song should be included on “List of songs by (musician)” articles or something? Sergecross73msg me20:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've only ever really written/maintained one of those sorts of articles, (List of songs recorded by A Perfect Circle) and I recall asking some editors who wrote these sorts of articles more often how they handled this, because I was looking at various WP:FAs and still not entirely understanding it myself either. Whoever it was, told me the key word is "recorded". If the alternate version song was separately recorded and recorded by the band, then list it. If it wasn't, then don't. So, for example, with A Perfect Circle, I included their alternate version of the song "Orestes" because it was a separate recording, sung by a different band member with different instrumentation. But I didn't include the remix of "Weak and Powerless" because it was done by Wes Borland - someone who was not a band member, and had no newly recorded content by band members. Similarly, I didn't include any songs they cover live in concert, except for the ones recorded on the live album they put out. So that's how I've handled it, and apparently how others have to. Honestly, in my experience, most of these lists are either FAs, or terribly maintained. So, if its an FA, I'd assume its already correctly handled, and if its not and FA and not actively maintained, you can probably handle it as you please because no one will be around to disagree with you. Sergecross73msg me14:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: In majority any existing song was recorded, do you mean "released" (on single or album)? Your example was quite simple but in case of Basshunter as I menioned above it's very complicated because we have there very little differences or just title translation. I belive there are artists/bands that made like 20-releases of one song with not too many differences ("2010 edition" etc.). Eurohunter (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I definitely meant recorded, but being actually released would be a requirement too, I wouldn't generally list unreleased songs or demos/unfinished stuff unless it was released officially. Personally, I'd list any alternately recorded versions that were released by the band/musician, but not list remixes by third parties, performances that were live and not professionally recorded/released, or any insignificant changes that doesn't particularly help the reader. (I don't think it's important to separately list out a radio edit version of a song that cut out 30 seconds of guitar solo or something, for example.) Sergecross73msg me18:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Songs since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Brand New (Ben Rector song) is a good example of an article that meets WP:NSONG, but will not become anything more than what it currently is: basic information about the low-charting song, WP:OR on the genres, a incorrectly formatted chart, and nothing important about the song. Easily merged into the album it came from, but the "notability criteria" is so vague it will exist like this until we change something. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
There’s nothing wrong with just doing a bold merge/redirect on stuff like this, with an edit summary mentioning something to the capacity of what you said above. Just because something is notable still doesn’t require that it has its own article. I mean I’m not opposed to adding/tweaking anything, but there’s nothing wrong with taking action as is either. Sergecross73msg me11:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe this is perfectly legit reasoning to do so per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I just make sure if there is sourced charting info that it's listed in the artist's discography section or page. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me17:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
One way or the other, I'd like to get a consensus on whether charting nationally makes a song notable. Also, we need to confirm that XXL and Billboard are considered reliable sources. Please comment. Not a fan of Kinky Nicky Minaj but trying to play fair. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Billboard and XXL are both considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. And judging by the unanimous stance against the nomination, I feel like we more or less have a consensus on charting too. Sergecross73msg me01:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I’d say it’s too soon, but I imagine it may come to that at this rate too, judging by how obstinate they are being. I mean they’re getting shut down by a wide variety of experienced music editors, and all they do is regurgitate “read NM” like we’re not the ones who have been writing and enforcing it for years. Cluelessness like this usually doesn’t go on for that long. Sergecross73msg me15:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Billboard and XXL are reliable sources of course. Charting should't make a song notable, please see 1, 2 and there are plenty of other examples. All this song don't deserve an article, henceforth charting should't make a sog notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thanks for responding. I fully agree with you (see the discussion I started above) but the articles you're nominating are not simply stubs with sourced, low-charting information. They all have discussions and other references. You should probably stop and think about what you're nominating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of what I'm doing you all need to understand there is a big diference between WP:GNG as they are general and some are not, henceforth we have this ones [[1]]. We can't apply the general ones to music, if we apply everything becomes a mess and please take a look at the articles, there isn't a single source refering to the songs, on Whip It a user found a couple. But on the Selena one, there is nothing. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you are. You didn't get MOS:INDENTGAP right here, and you're being WP:POINTY in your editing. The consensus here is that if you keep wasting the project's time, we may need to go to ANI over this and request a topic ban. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You’ve had multiple AFDs that have gone unanimously against you, with relative high participation rates and experienced editors weighing in. That’s a pretty clear sign that you’re not quite understanding everything correctly. You need to start looking at this differently. Notability discussions aren’t necessarily as black and white as you seem to think they are. Otherwise the system would be run by bots and computer programs. But it’s more nuanced than that. It takes some common sense and deeper consideration. Sergecross73msg me21:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
In my otherwise irrelevant opinion, charting does not create inherent notability unless it’s the Top 10 of an important mainstream chart (Billboard being the most important, obviously that goes without question). But even that is subjective. The music industry considers “Top 40” to be the said threshold of success but to me a song 30 spots lower than the top 10 is not it. XXL is a reliable source for hip-hop-related content. If a reliable source notes that a song has reached a position that they deem notable then yes, that can be an act of notability. But we’re thisclose 🤏to Instagram likes counting toward chart position so proceed with caution. ⌚️ (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I don’t think charting is an automatic sign of notability either. It’s a case by case basis type thing. But I think there’s a difference between songs that are two sentences long with a single chart in the high fifties of the US Country charts, and these articles that are 20KB in length, charting in five separate national charts, and has 30 to 100 supplemental sources. The problem is that MSTF is nominating articles closer to the later, and common sense should tell you that, whether your Google search came up with enough dedicated sources or not, with being so prominently featured across multiple nations, there’s likely a handful of sources to be found. It’d be one thing if they were unsourced/undersourced, but the content is properly (and often heavily) sourced otherwise too. Sergecross73msg me23:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that charting does not create inherent notability as you can see from my stub question above (didn't I already write something like this?). However, the targets you are selecting do meet other notability criteria. Please take them all into account when deciding whether to nominate or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that we can agree that charts are not related to relevance of a song, as peaking on the bubbling under or something in that vein it is nothing. You guys just see a couple of sources in album-reviews and its notable, not its not. To futher my point, "enough sources to write an article does not mean enough independent sources with significant coverage to demonstrate notability". Like I said on "Whip It" a user found sources, which is awesome, same for other songs I moninated. I had articles deleted in the past, so those falacies don't work. You claiming that it "there’s likely a handful of sources to be found" doesn't mean they are. Once more I just point out the case of the Selena song I nominated as it doesn't meet any requirements. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I've visited four of the AfDs you've created recently and not one of them should be up for debate, so your fallacy about having articles deleted in the past does not carry to your current actions. Of course, you may continue to do so and I may take it to ANI if it continues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The song is WP:NSONGS partly because it has charted but because there is coverage about it from reliable sources. Having said that, could the information have been included on the parent album's page? Yes absolutely, the parent album page is not too big and someone could have created a section about the songs. At the end of the day its neither here nor there really - the article was created a while ago and the song has received coverage from notable industry sources (and third party coverage). An AfD was created and lost, I think it's time to move on and use this experience as a barometer before you nominate other articles. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1- (Talk) -15:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
So my take is: "charting" confers automatic notability only for "Top 10" songs on Billboard, and "supplemental" sources count more for notability per WP:NSONG. Songs that are not singles are not automatically deleted, but are sometimes merged. Sources about primarily an album can count towards notability of a "single" or other song on that LP, for context. Am I right? Bearian (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why you went with a bullet, but no, the general consensus is that charting does not confer automatic notability. It is an indication that sources to support notability may be found. The preface to the criteria is even more clear: "any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." Notability is clearly referencing WP:GNG's criteria here: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
PPAACCMAN4 (talk·contribs) has been adding large "Release history" tables to Aerosmith song articles (click on contribs for which). These largely duplicate the existing infoboxes, with the addition of promo/radio/DJ copies. When they are referenced, they usually include a link to rateyourmusic.com and discogs.com for sources (both considered unreliable). It looks like they are working their way through Aerosmith's song catalogue, after doing much the same for the group's albums. These does not follow WP practices and much of it looks like what discogs has on its release pages – that is, it is details for details sake and not encyclopedic content. Since this may require reverts on dozens of articles, some level of concurrence would be beneficial. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@PPAACCMAN4: You're adding unsourced content (RateYourMusic.com is not a reliable source as it's user-generated) so all what you're doing can be removed based on WP:RS.
Before I start reverting it all, I'd like to know why it's being added. What does this content add that can't be discovered at discogs.com? How is it encyclopedic rather than merely informative?
The point was to simply clarify release dates.
As an example: Done With Mirrors has long been listed as Nov. 9, 1985. A Saturday. Most record releases are not on the weekend. The copyright office lists it as Nov. 4,1985. Similar problems existed with other Aerosmith albums listed as being released on the 1st of a given month. My goal was to improve upon the discography with regards to release dates. The reason for the release history table was to clarify information that exists on both Discogs and Allmusic. I would not call the USA copyright office, RIAA, Billboard, Record World and Cash Box unreliable. However I do see your point on Rate Your Music.
Discogs was used as photographic evidence for the Aerosmith self-titled first album in regards to a more approximate date for the third album cover usually attributed to 1976. I apologize for the use of the quotation marks. After reading some guidelines I see the this style is not used in Wikipedia. I am still fairly new to this and learning as I go. Thanks for your time. PPAACCMAN4 (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
One problem is that the release dates you've added are not supported: the sources do not actually specify release date. Rather, it appears the dates used are taken from copyright registrations "publication date" (not necessarily the same), date first advertised, and date first entered the charts. The dates are often different and none actually say "released on". Please note that sites such as discogs.com, imdb, songfacts, amazon, itunes, forums and fan sites are never reliable sources and, except for reviews, AllMusic details for older releases are often wrong.
For example, you added to the lead for Get Your Wings: "Although the official website for Aerosmith lists the release date for Get Your Wings as March 1, 1974, the USA copyright office lists the album as being released on March 8, 1974.[1] The album was actually delayed one additional week from the copyright date and released on March 15, 1974[2]":
1) aerosmith.com doesn't appear to list official release dates (also not linked as a source);
2) the copyright office indicates the publishing date as March 8, which fixes the date for copyright purposes. This is not necessarily equivalent to release date: the record company may ship the album prior to its official release or "street date", but still have copyright protection;
3) Billboard has an advertisement for the album in its March 16 issue and makes no mention of a release date (where does March 15 come from?) Also, there is a lag between when magazine receives the ad copy from Columbia and when the issue is actually published – does the record company always time its releases to exactly coincide with the date of Billboard publishing its ad?
The lead is supposed to be a overview or summary of the most important points in the article. Judging from the amount of emphasis they receive in Get Your Wings (2 out of 6 sentences), the conflicting dates seem to be the most important thing about the album. However, they are not discussed in the rest of the article, except as a line item in the "Release history" table (without a citation). This type of info may be of interest to record collectors who obsess over errata and minor publishing variations. However, it is unnecessary for an encyclopedic article and is best for collector websites that specialize in pressing plant matrix numbers, run out markings ("Do what thou wilt"), etc.
I'd add that the official websites of artists are often incorrect regarding release dates for albums from the 70s and 80s... you have to bear in mind that the website was probably set up two decades or more after the album was released, and the person maintaining it very likely doesn't have access to information from the time, only what they have been told (heck, they might not even have been born when the album first came out). I'd never rely on official websites as a source for release dates, in the past I've found several that are demonstrably wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
yes sir i can boogie
what a load of crap that this song has sold 18 million copies barely a million in certs and somehow its sold another 17 million without a shred of proof you people ay wkikipedia are full of shit07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.175.141 (talk)
Well, apart from the fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between sales and certifications, and the history of certifications and that they didn't exist in most countries in 1977, if you read the article properly you would see that Wikipedia isn't responsible for saying it has sold that much... the claim of 18 million sales was made by Joseph Murrell, Wikipedia is simply reporting his claim. Richard3120 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
A single or a promotional one??
Hi Guys. I've been in Wikipedia for a while and I have realized I don't really know how to differ a single from a promotional single when it is only released digitally. There are songs that are shown in digital music platforms as "singles" but some of them are consider by wikipedists as "promotional singles". I don't if it has to be recognize by the artist as a single, or it has to be mentioned to be one on a music publication.
For example, a publication on NME[2] refers to "Leave It Alone" by Hayley Williams as a "new single" and the second to be released from her album Petals for Armor. The song has been released digitally (as "Simmer", the first album single and considered as a "single") in most of the digital well-known music platforms. So I don't know how to deem a song as a single or a promotional one. Thanks in advance!--Saviourofthe (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The "promotional single" terminology is most useful when applied to the pre-mp3 era, but I suppose it could still be found today. A "promotional single" is released only to radio stations (or otherwise distributed in very limited copies "within the industry", not to the public). A "single" proper, on the other hand, is a retail single which is commercially available for purchase (or consumption) by the general public.
The division between mere "promotional" singles and real singles was a result of the pre-digital era, because in order to play a song at all you needed some physical copy of it. Labels wanted certain songs to get radio airplay without necessarily releasing them commercially to the public, but they couldn't just send radio stations an mp3 or a link, they still had to send an actual physical product. A telltale sign of a promotional CD single from the 90s is that the label wouldn't bother to provide unique cover artwork and would stick to generic, purely functional labeling or reused artwork. Compare Radiohead's retail CD single "Paranoid Android" with the generically labeled promo CD singles "Let Down" or "Airbag", or the retail CD "High & Dry" b/w "Planet Telex" with the promo CD "Bones", which just reuses a simplified version of the earlier artwork.
Of course, very few people purchase singles on physical media like vinyl or CD anymore. Today, I would say that something becomes a "true" single by having its own dedicated page on digital retailers and/or streaming platforms, most likely including its own unique cover artwork. "Leave It Alone" has both (here's its page on Spotify, and I just uploaded that cover art to Wikipedia). —BLZ · talk19:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Promotional single still may be released digitally without releasing it to the public. If something was released on publicly avaiable online store like iTunes it can't be promotional release. Eurohunter (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: that is correct, and that's a good point of clarification. To be clear, promotional singles still exist; I hedged because I'm not personally aware of how prevalent they are currently, but nothing about the shift from physical media to digital means that promotional singles can't or don't still exist. The relevant difference remains distribution internal to the music industry (promotional) vs. distribution to the public (regular single). —BLZ · talk22:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Current discussion re several R.E.M. songs regards whether charting on Billboards "alternative rock" chart is a reliable source for the genre being "alternative rock".
IMO, charting is not a reliable source for genre. From a pedantic point of view, it is not a reliable source stating, with editorial oversight, anything about the song other than that a radio stations previously classified as "modern rock" or "alternative rock" were playing it.
From a practical point of view, radio stations do not necessarily stick to a particular genre. Through the late 1980s and 1990s, R.E.M. was a staple on modern rock/alternative rock/college radio stations. When a new R.E.M. single was released, those stations played it, because their listeners wanted to hear it, whether it was "modern rock", "bubblegum pop" or something else altogether.
Similarly, using charting as a source for genre would give us multiple cases that I'm sure most of us would recognize as absurd. While I don't see the sources for saying "We Are the World" is pop and/or gospel, I can reasonably see strong arguments supporting that. Charts, however, would make the song dance/disco, country, R&B/hip-hop and mainstream rock. - SummerPhDv2.014:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I also think this is a slippery slope to go down. Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" charted on the Billboard Latin Pop chart, but I don't think many people would see this song as Latin pop. Whereas, say, Madonna's "La Isla Bonita" has far more obvious Latin music influences, but never charted on any Billboard Latin chart... but did reach number one on the Adult Contemporary chart instead. So is "La Isla Bonita" more an AOR song than a Latin pop one? I don't think many would agree. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
A song not charting doesn't prove it wasn't a certain genre. Sometimes, there will be an anomaly but for the most part, if a song charts on a hip hop chart, it's hip hop and if it's on a country chart, it's country. Either way, the question is not if Billboard charts are definitive truth but if they are verifiable (they are) and reliable (they are) sources for these types of claims. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Charting songs are not subject to editorial review. Songs clearly show up on charts for genres that no one would argue apply. I'm really having trouble hearing "We Are the World" as country, R&B, hip-hop and dance/disco... - SummerPhDv2.016:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have sources for that and it's worth discussing. However, it is off-topic here. - SummerPhDv2.016:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not okay to source a song's genre from charts. The two don't align for example Rhythmic songs does not refer to a genre. Radio stations pick and choose what they play which is why on occasion R&B or other genre songs end up being played on Latin stations and therefore airplay drives their chart position. I think it would be best to avoid using a song's charting on a particular genre chart as an indication it is of that genre. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There are anomalies: the Beach Boys decidedly not-R&B "Surfer Girl" and "Be True to Your School" showed up on the R&B charts. Genres should be taken from sources where there is some discussion of the musical style, rather than just a name dropped into a list or blurb. Otherwise, they are not useful nor encyclopedic. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely OK to source a song's genre from charts except when the song was remixed or remastered for that chart. Stations only play songs that fit into their format whether that song is R&B, pop, urban Uzbek, rock, hip-hop or anything else. If a song is played on a station that does not report for that charting (for instance an R&B track played on a Latin station as was the example above) the polling would only count toward the Latin charts, not the R&B charts. I think this misinformation needs to start and is a complete misunderstanding of what charting constitutes (the era of payola excepted). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I do it sparingly, only as an absolute last resort for non-contentious stuff. (For example, adding Rock to a Foo Fighters song that charted on the Mainstream Rock chart. Anything else, I stay away from it. Sergecross73msg me18:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree that if there is push-back, a different source should be found, and if all you have is charting info, it shouldn't be an article anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, though in creating lots of song articles, I have occasionally found rare circumstances of songs that receive plenty of coverage, but for whatever reason, none address genre. Saint Cecilia (song) is the only example that comes to mind. Lots of coverage, but not really on genre. But I added Rock mostly on the grounds of the chart, and that there really isn’t a good faith counter-argument to saying it’s not something as vague as rock music. But if one was brought up, or a better source was found, I’d defer to the new source over the chart in a second... Sergecross73msg me18:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: so you would agree that we could list "We Are the World" as adult contemporary, hip hop, country, and disco, based on the Billboard charts that it charted on, but remove "pop" and "gospel" from the infobox as there are no sources for those? Richard3120 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are you pinging me? Do you think that I do not have this talk page on my watchlist and just stumbled across the current discussion?
I know you have this page on your watchlist - so do I, but that doesn't mean I might not miss a question aimed directly at me unless I was pinged, so I was extending you the same courtesy. I agree with you that there are definitely problems with that article, considering it's an FA. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I’d say add it if there’s is a good-faith argument that it fits the song, and remove it should be removed the moment there’s a good-faith doubt about the genre or a better source. Sergecross73msg me20:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: two things I would note: firstly, I don't believe the release with "Straight to Hell" on the other side is a "reissue", I think that's the original UK release, which was as a double A-side, rather than "Straight to Hell" being just the B-side. Secondly, I don't think Paul du Noyer's review is from 1998... why would he say "there is still life left in the band" 16 years after the song's release, and well after they had split up? In 1982 du Noyer was working as a journalist for the NME, and I suspect that his review is in fact his original review from reviewing the week's singles releases for that music paper back in 1982, which was subsequently reproduced in a book of his collected writings. Richard3120 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I was just copying-and-pasting and rearranging what was already there. Admittedly, rateyourmusic is still unreliable but was first used back in 2007. Then the "reissue" part was first added by IP editor in 2011. I'm finding reliable sources that would me correct those errors. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: I've made some changes to the draft's text, mostly to do with spelling and grammar – the most important change is that "Straight to Hell" wasn't the "main A-side" of the European double A-side, it was in fact "Should I Stay or Should I Go" – this was certainly the song that was played far more on the radio in the UK at the time (speaking from personal experience), and you'll see that "Straight to Hell" is marked as the "AA side" on record labels from 1982... this is an indication that it was the "lesser" A side. I'm not keen on that release table – it's in the wrong place in the text, and confusingly out of order. But this is what's already in the mainspace version, and it can just as easily be addressed after the merge is performed. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bluesatellite: I've withdrawn the nomination. If I had looked more closely at the navigation template at the bottom, I would have seen that there are per-year articles and per-decade articles. List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2020 falls into the former while List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2020s falls into the latter. There is no duplication. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed before and even taken to AfD in the past, but there's never been enough consensus to go with one over the other. I think the yearly lists are too detailed and you certainly don't need 11 rows to say that "The Box" has been number one for 11 weeks when one row will do. The ones who created the UK lists of number-one singles were much more on the ball when these were created. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's exactly what I thought. The decade-list is way easier to maintain and all information on those yearly list could easily be incorporated there. After further research, I find that some of these yearly list have already had FL status, so yeah the clear consensus would be quite complicated. Even if we choose to keep the yearly list-articles, the decade ones should be deleted because of they're pretty much redundant. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Infobox single or infobox song?
Hi all. I've recently begun expanding David Bowie's "The Man Who Sold the World" and the infobox single is used currently. However, based on research I've done, Bowie's recording was never released as an A-side. It was released as a B-side in 1973 to "Space Oddity" in the US and "Life on Mars?" in the UK. The picture sleeve used in the infobox is the 1973 RCA reissue single sleeve, the exact same one as "Space Oddity" (not the reverse (i.e. "All You Need Is Love" and "Baby, You're a Rich Man") but the front). So, saying it was a "single from the album The Man Who Sold the World" is wrong, because there were no singles from that album, ever. I think it should be changed to infobox song because other Bowie songs, including "Right", use infobox song and was only a B-side. Then again, "Wild Eyed Boy from Freecloud" uses infobox single and it was only a B-side, so maybe there should be a clear standard established. – zmbro(talk)15:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
As outlined in Template:Infobox song#type, "If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known" [emphasis in original]. It appears that it is better known as an album track than as a later B-side, so |type=song (or default) is appropriate. Also, only one image should be included in the infobox, preferably one more tied to the song. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I think the issue here is that although Bowie's original recording of "The Man Who Sold the World" was never released as a single, it was recorded and released a a single by both Lulu and Nirvana... Nirvana's live version of the song is arguably the best known version nowadays. But that's a subjective opinion... I guess Bowie's version should have a Template:Infobox song template and the other two versions listed as singles instead, further down in the same article? Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
If there is enough accompanying prose to support them, additional renditions often have their own infoboxes.[3] It shouldn't make a difference whether they are a single or not; an album track may be as or more famous. But there are instances when there might not be enough about the original for a box or only a later rendition gets much coverage, but that does not appear to be the case with TMWSTW. A few years ago, there was an Infobox standard that attempted to deal with multiple renditions, but it was thoroughly misunderstood/misused (& deprecated with very little notice and discussion). Some traditional songs use Template:Infobox musical composition, when there's not one obvious famous rendition. That's probably the only other alternative. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I just changed "The Man Who Sold the World" and "Wild Eyed Boy from Freecloud". They were using the infobox song template but just had "single" instead of "song". Lulu's version is listed as a "single" while Nirvana's is listed as a "promotional single". I'm sure other Bowie songs that were just B-sides are listed as "singles" so whenever I find those I'll be sure to change them. – zmbro(talk)17:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking at "Article alerts"
How often has anyone reviewed a list of pages seen at WP:SONGS#Article alerts, including files listed at FFD? I wonder whether you guys have been aware of discussions on certain pages categorized as part of this WikiProject. --George Ho (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I am a humble typo fixer of advanced age and could not figure out how to fix the bad grammar in this article - i.e. what it is trying to say. --LilHelpa (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
It was fine until an editor started adding prose last month. It's doubtful whether this song is notable anyway – it reached no. 36 in the UK but that's about the only thing I can say about it... none of the sources are RS, so it needs a prog rock fan to be able to say if there are any good sources for this single. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
One's tempted to think it's all just a joke. I mean, it's an atrocious read(!) All the additions since mid March should just be reverted, surely. JG66 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree – everything that's been added is either non-RS, personal opinion, or simply unintelligible. The editor in question has added to other articles with poor English, so I'm sure it's not a joke, they're just not a native speaker. Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed several items in Category:Eminem songs have been placed into categories even if they are re-directs. Is there any standard for this? Should they stay or should they be removed? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
They would have probably been placed into categories before they were redirected, and now they show up in italic font. I've never seen a definitive answer to this - personally I think once an article has been redirected the categories should be removed as well, as to me it's no different to keeping a blue link in an article that redirects back to that article, it doesn't serve any purpose. But some editors prefer to keep the categories. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not a fan of the categorization of redirects for albums and songs, either, but if there is substantial and sourced info about it in the target article, that's a bit more acceptable to me. If it's just for an album that's only mentioned in the artist's discography or a song that is included only as part of an album's track listing without any other coverage, then it is unhelpful to categorize the redirect. I believe something like Category:A Day to Remember songs is completely ridiculous. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me16:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we should form some consensus. Although I see why editors would like to do this, it would be very confusing or frustrating for readers who happen to visit a category and attempt to click on what would appear to be an article and have it re-direct to an album or a discography page. How does this help our readers? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The user Richard3120 questioned the notability of the article. The undersigned has implemented the article and removed the advise, but the user has rollebacked me. On the talk page I also opened a section in which I give further references. What do you think about it? --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean, yes, the song charted, but there’s virtually no content present. If that’s all there is to be said, it should be merged into a different article. Sergecross73msg me13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kasper2006, the problem is basically as Sergecross73 presents it. The extra chart positions you have added are not valid because they are not the official charts of those countries - top40charts.com is listed under "websites to avoid" at WP:CHARTS. And while it may be a matter of personal opinion that Oprah Winfrey's magazine is authoritative, all it actually says is that the song has had lots of YouTube views and Spotify streams - this is nothing unusual, almost every song released these days gets millions of views/streams, so we don't recognise that as being particularly notable. @Sergecross73: the problem with a redirect is that the most obvious target for the page is the Casa de Papel/Money Heist soundtrack, also created by Kasper2006, but there's no evidence that article is notable either, it's just a list of songs found on a Spotify playlist. And with two artists credited on the hit version of the single, WP:XY is an issue there. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, even the artist, Cecilia Krull, is looking pretty iffy for notability. I could see maybe redirect/merging to the Netflix show article. No problem mentioning the theme song and a couple notes about it there. Sergecross73msg me15:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
ThumbYou say that they are not notable articles, but what is certain is that they are very sought after by users. Eliminating them would be a diminution for the community. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That’s not how things work on Wikipedia. Subjects need to meet notability requirements, and even if they’re met, they are at risk at being merged into other articles if there’s little to no sourcing/content to be said about them. You can’t just make vague allusions to page views and “people want to read about this” statements to keep articles. I recommend doing some serious research to find some better sources. If someone sent this to be discussed for deletion, there is no way it would survive in its current state. Sergecross73msg me17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
A few hundred views per day is not particularly high for a Wikipedia article. And I don't doubt that people are looking for information on a very popular Netflix series. But if that article isn't providing any information beyond "this is a song, it has a couple of remixes, and lots of people are listening to it", then that's not providing any useful information for them. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with what Serge says, by the way – I added the notability tag because I wanted to make you aware that this is far from meeting Wikipedia requirements, and that it was in danger of being nominated for deletion (it still is). But I'm not as trigger happy as some Wikipedia editors: I wanted to give you the opportunity to improve the article. The same goes for the soundtrack as well, that's also very much in danger of being nominated if another editor comes across it. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Question about David Guetta
Guetta is a strange anomaly to categorisation because he writes music, is listed as a featured or lead artist (but doesn't provide vocals) and also produces music. Yet a quick look of categories show that the following categories exist: Category:David Guetta songs and Category:Songs written by David Guetta but there isn't a category for songs produced by David Guetta or Remixes produced by David Guetta. Would these be beneficial or superfluous? → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, if you have a look at the thread immediately above this one, you will see that some editors don't agree with the idea of including categories in redirects anyway... Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Because otherwise it sounds like all the versions of that song were produced by the same person, instead of individual recordings of the same song having different producers. Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been doing that, but some editors keep putting it back. I just wanted to make sure I had it correct before taking it any further. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Related issue: Links to service providers and retailers are increasingly being used as sources for release dates, credits, and other details. In March 2015, an "e-commerce sources" section was added to the reliable sources guideline[4], which advises "inline citations are allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". This was done with no apparent input from the music community and contradicts WP:NOTRSMUSIC: "Online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.com should also be avoided. It can be seen as inappropriate to directly link to a site where one can purchase the subject in question".
While "titles and running times" may be OK, there is no indication that this should extend to songwriter and personnel credits, such as musical instrumentation and production. In the absence of consensus, service providers and retailers should not be used as sources for other details.
@Ojorojo: in the cases in question, it's simply linking to Spotify to listen to the song... it's not being used to provide any information about the song. Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is usually done with a Vevo or other authorized non-retail video/audio provider link. The point is, Spotify and other commercial providers should not be used in articles, except for very limited purposes. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
"Impact" sections on articles for very recent songs
Hi, does anyone else feel like the "Impact" sections on "You Need to Calm Down" and "The Man" are unnecessary? The long-term impact of songs cannot be fully determined less than 12 months after release, and what is currently written in the sections reads like a bunch of unrelated trivia.--NØ09:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say they are unnecessary, they seem to be well-written and sourced, and the information is relevant to the articles. But perhaps "Impact" isn't the correct heading, it does make it sound like it changed the world – "Legacy" might be better, and possibly as a subheading under "Critical reception". Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you might be right... I'm searching for the right word, but I don't think the section should be removed completely. Richard3120 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. It seems to me that if a bunch of notable things happened as a result of a song coming out, even if the song is recent, then it's worth collecting in a section, keeping in mind the usual WP:RECENTISM cautions. I feel like Impact is more or less appropriate and better than Legacy (which feels more long-term to me). There might be a better word but I can't think of it. Response? It obviously also depends on what exactly that impact is. Popcornfud (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I think I’m mostly on the same wave-length as you guys too. I don’t know if Impact is the right word or not, but the content itself still seems valid for inclusion in the article regardless. I’m less bothered by these examples though. I’m no Swift fan, but it’s pretty clear her 2019 singles are more impactful than most songs will ever reach. I’d be more bothered by, let’s say, Slipknot’s 2019 single winning a Kerrang award or Jimmy Eat World being in Madden 20 being labeled as “impact”, which is probably the more common type of thing that I would see be done, and would argue is not appropriate. Sergecross73msg me15:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Impact means different things in different contexts. If a song led to loads of media coverage and sparked a debate then I'd say it had a major impact. React (Pussycat Dolls song) for example sparked 400 complaints to OFCOM and a number of strongly written media pieces. I think Legacy is more about how in the future people look back and remember/talk about the song but Impact is more short term. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 09:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no objection to that sort of usage either. It’s just that editors can have such bad judgement on this sort of thing. People could just as easily say a song had “impact” because a five second clip was played in a commercial for fishing gear or something totally inconsequential like that. But I guess we’re not necessarily trying to write a guideline or anything either so it’s okay if we don’t have a hard definition I suppose. Sergecross73msg me18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding a particular song that promotes Coca-Cola?
Hello. I wanted to know who sang this version during a commercial promoting the popular brand. I found it very soothing and wanted to know if anyone here knows the singer's name that sang this short version, cause it sounded really good when I heard it back in 2016. It stuck with me ever since so I wanted to know who sang this, so I can find a full version or even request one if I can get the name of the singer. It's doesn't sound like Conrad Sewell's voice or Avicii's, but a different voice entirely. I just want to dig through this so I can get it off my chest and rest easily. Thank you! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Was wondering if someone from this WikPproject could take a look at the cover art being used in the infobox of Konstantine (song). It seems to be the cover art for the EP the single appeared on and not really the single itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Question on origin of Glad All Over, I'm So Glad
Question: Were Dave Clark Five's "Glad All Over" and Cream's "I'm So Glad" intended as send-ups of Charles Hubert Parry's coronation hymn "I Was Glad?" This song is still used at Royal occasions and would have been well-known to these bands. This bears looking into. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.98.231 (talk) 17:49, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
High and Dry and Planet Telex - two songs released on the same single, but with separate articles.
I'm inclined to think it's better to have one page, unless coverage for both songs is so vast they justify having separate articles. Wondering if anyone had better ideas, if there's some MOS guidance I missed, etc... Popcornfud (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Song articles should be about the songs. It's rare when a song is notable simply for being released as a single. The amount of independent coverage would be the key as to whether each song has its own article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me01:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hm. I already went ahead and boldly merged the High and Dry and Planet Telex singles into one article, as I don't think there's extensive coverage of either out there... or at least no more extensive coverage than many other songs on the album. Maybe that wasn't the right call and I jumped the gun? Popcornfud (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I think you're okay – it's not as if the combined article is bulging at the seams. In instances where each of the double A tracks gets no end of coverage, we do need separate articles. I've always been slightly confused about why it is we differentiate between singles and songs, but the idea that an article covers the entire single release (unless each track warrants a separate article) does seem to justify this difference. JG66 (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I have a question related to this, and it's something that's been bothering me for some time... what do we do about a double A-side which has a new song on one side, and a cover version on the other? For example, there is an article for "Heartbeat/Tragedy" by Steps – this was a million-selling single in the UK in the pre-streaming era, so it's significant. But believe me, nobody was playing "Heartbeat" on the radio, or buying the single for that song... it was the Bee Gees cover that was gaining all the attention. There are also no fewer than three double A-sided singles by McFly that also fall into this category: "All About You/You've Got a Friend", "Baby's Coming Back/Transylvania" and "Do Ya/Stay with Me". By having separate articles from the original we are ignoring WP:SONGCOVER, and more to the point, none of the prose for the original song in each of these four cases is sourced, just the combined chart position. Should they be separate articles or included as separate sections in the articles for the original songs? Richard3120 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I would be inclined to cover information about the cover versions in the articles about the song itself (as per WP:SONGCOVER) and ignore the other songs unless they also receive coverage. Popcornfud (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
And since we're on the subject of how singles are covered... here's another weirdness. Check out the page for the single Street Spirit. The infobox says it's a single (ie not a song), but only lists the running time for the song, and not the running time for the entire release (ie B-sides are excluded). However, there is a track list section with B-sides listed. I don't really get whether this (and similar articles) are about the song or the single. Popcornfud (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, WP takes a comprehensive approach to songs. Besides information about composition, lyrics, recording, etc., details about the commercial release(s) are also included, which is often as a single. To focus just on the release or "single" aspects gives only a partial view. When there are covers, they are discussed in one song article, because other artists record the song (musical composition) rather than a single (means of recorded release). B-sides or a second A-side are mentioned, but if they are notable, they should have a separate article. Except for special cases, it would be off-topic to devote too much to a different song. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that all makes sense, but I think many of our articles give mixed messages in that regard. For example, should the Street Spirit infobox say "Song by Radiohead" instead of "Single"? Should the infobox give the running length for just the A-side song, or the entire commercial single release, including B-sides? Should it list all producers for all songs on the release, or just the A-side? Should it have a track list section if the article is only for one song? It doesn't make sense for a single song to have a track list. Etc. Popcornfud (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, Popcornfud – you're right, if one's looking for a logic, it's just not there. That's a valid point about running length for the entire release, B-side producers (and writers), etc. I guess the idea is we're talking about a song that happens to have been issued as a single, and it's best known for that release. And it is common to refer to an A-side alone as a "single". But I've never really understood the point of the thing (formerly Infobox single) at all. It's a case of having to live with it, I guess. JG66 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
There has been some discussion over the years why it is necessary to emphasize the type of release in the infobox, especially now when the distinction between single, promo, track, etc. has become increasingly blurred. However, there hasn't been a consensus on just having "Song by" in the infobox. Some of your questions are addressed in the Template:Infobox song guidance. Using type= produces "Song by", "Single by", "Promotional single by", etc., which should reflect the "most notable or best known". So a limited release single or one for a minor market may use type=song (also the default) if appropriate. The length should be just for the song that is the subject of the article as well as recording date, studio, writers, producers, etc. Track listing sections should primarily be for different mixes, radio edits, etc.: one song may have a variety of versions. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
My comment applies to the track listing section for the article, not the album track listing for the infobox. Songs sometimes have additional mixes/remixes/radio edit versions that may be noteworthy. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Popcornfud: I re-read your first comment and see the The Daily Mail / Staircase track listing section. I don't know why it's needed; it can be easly identified in the prose section (I've sometimes seen these "Track listing" sections for a one-song digital download). (see also MOS:OVERSECTION: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.") It would be better if there was a "The Daily Mail" (Big Shot remix), "The Daily Mail" (dance-club mix), "The Daily Mail" (radio edit), "The Daily Mail" (extended version), etc. Also, the article does not mention of that this a double A-side (only TDM charted) and the reviews seem to treat them separately. It looks like "Staircase" is just piggy-backing on TDM and is not itself notable. This may be the case with other articles that attempt to address two songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Ojorojo, that's a good point about the lack of mention of a double A-side single. This seems to be a complication introduced by the digital age. It seems the songs were released only as downloads... together. On streaming services such as Spotify they're listed together on the album "The Daily Mail / Staircase". They never got a physical release, except as a promo CD. Popcornfud (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, it's seeming less and less like a candidate for a two-song article. I noticed that Planet Telex / High and Dry also includes additional songs ("Maquiladora", "Killer Cars", "India Rubber", etc.), which makes it seem more like an EP. This is getting complicated... —Ojorojo (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Production discographies and lists of recorded songs
What is the best place for writen songs? Is it list of recorded songs, discography or it depends on release (standalone release of single or album)? If we have production discographies shouldn't we have also writing discography? Eurohunter (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I mean we can have separate lists for discographies, recorded, produced or writen songs but what to do if we have not enough material for them. Category would be the only possibility? We can always include discography with one album or one single somewhere in the biography but what to do with case of one written song? The other idea would be to have list which would include all recorded, produced and written songs by certain artist but I have no idea for that. Eurohunter (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Theoretically you could have a list article titled List of songs written by xxxx, but then it would need some reliable sources, and I know Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars isn't very keen on those kinds of lists (and neither am I). If there isn't enough material for a list article or it can't be sourced, I think a category is the only option. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
If there is not enough material to warrant a stand-alone list, you include it in the main article. Editors of that page can determine how much of that info actually belongs though; if it's too detailed, trivial, or has insufficient sourcing, for example. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me23:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
How to join the discussion? And where is that list?
"This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page,
where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks."
Please pardon my ignorance, but I can't see how one is supposed to join the discussion, as though one has to enlist by putting one's name down somewhere; -Or by making this very comment, have I indeed joined the discussion already? -Would somebody please confirm or advise as to the meaning of the remark which I have quoted above from the top of this page?
Furthermore, where that remark says "see a list of open tasks," there doesn't seem to be such a list here like that? -Would somebody please confirm or advise as to the meaning of that remark which I have quoted above from the top of this page?
@TonyCH64: that text is standard for every WikiProject tag on talk pages, not just for WikiProject Songs, so it's obviously come from somewhere higher up in the Wikipedia management chain. Perhaps it would be better to ask at the Teahouse, as it clearly affects every WikiProject. Richard3120 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Artists/songs without articles
Hi all, I have been working on a project to track all the artists who have had a top 40 single in the UK that have not got articles, and the songs/singles which have reached the top 40 but do not have an entry. These lists are as accurate as I could make them and I would be grateful if editors could work on creating articles for all those that are missing, currently complete as far as possible for the 2000s, 2010s and 2020s so far. Some on the list could be aliases for artists which do already have articles, where this is the case a redirect would suffice.
This is problematic. We don't want to immediately create articles for artists or songs because they charted. We only want articles that have reliable sources that support their notability. If the most we can say about a subject is that they had (or were) a song that charted, then it's best to leave it as a redirect. One could point to the chart itself or to the artist (where a single is concerned). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It may be impossible to create articles for all of them, but I have noticed a lot of top 10 singles for big artists without articles which inspired me to pursue this - songs by massive artists like Cliff Richard, Ian Brown, Simply Red, Drake and Ed Sheeran. 03md16:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
For all of them? Why for any of them? Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I would not start. Leave biographies on one hit wonders to AllMusic. Focus instead on encyclopaedic content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
There is possibly little that can be said about a one-off dance track from this century. More chance of something more meaningful for a song or artist from the 50s or 60s?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage. DBigXrayᗙ 19:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
--Kasper2006 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
