Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Wrong release dates

What is the best way to determine first release date? It's easy for new singles because more or less we can observe it but in case of 2000s singles it's hard to say what was first, CD single or digital, Sweden or United Kingdom etc. I check entries in digital stores and also its archived versions and compare it to artist website and social media, label announcements in music video, trailers etc. but it's still hard especially if you are sure certain version of release not existed 10 years ago in iTunes but today it's added to Apple Music with quite random 2008 date when the real release of this version would be 2012. So if there are trailers with release date on 6 April 2009 you can find single in digital stores with release date on 5 and 6 April. If you compare different digital stores they has the same releases assigned to the same wrong release date or just both date looks weird if you look at archived announcements. There are also cases when release was announced and delayed. Eurohunter (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is that it's almost impossible to determine the first release date with 100% certainty for releases before the streaming era, we can only put the earliest date that we can find. Artist websites are often very unreliable and wrong, so they aren't a good source to check release dates. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconding this. Sadly, there's no fool-proof method. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hung Medien charts such as swisscharts.com do offer some decent insights. Digital stores are notoriously bad - particularly iTunes. I have found 7Digital to be more reliable, and beyond that, non-retail sources. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: Hung Medien are unreliable as well, I'm afraid. Look at Dire Straits "Money or Nothing"... allegedly released first in Germany on 28 May 1985, but it didn't chart in that country until October 1985, so clearly that release date is garbage. I'm willing to bet that the 24 June 1985 release date for most of Europe was the first release date for that single in any territory. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Richard3120 is right. You have to be careful about those dates. They can also list the wrong country from time to time, like "Smooth", where the "US" format is actually a European/Australian format. The ID says so. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to add to this, aren't the Hung Medien chart sites able to be edited by users? Really don't think they should be used on Wikipedia to source release dates prior to the 2000s. Btw, I've just gone through Dire Straits' discography and corrected all the release dates that I can ("Money for Nothing" was 28 June). There are so many incorrect release dates given on Wikipedia...DPUH (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@DPUH: thanks for changing them. The problem is that unless the release dates are specifically stated AND you have access to back issues of music magazines, it's incredibly difficult to get release dates correct. An extra problem with the release dates for the Brothers in Arms singles is that around 1984 and 1985 record companies in the UK were moving from Friday release dates to Monday release dates – Phonogram (the parent company of Dire Straits' label Vertigo) was one of the last to switch. So it's very likely that for releases in this era, we know the week of release (usually given in Music Week), but it's a toss-up as to whether the single or album came out on Monday or Friday of that week. Another of Phonogram's acts, Tears for Fears, released Songs from the Big Chair earlier in 1985... the article currently states a release date of Monday 25 February, but I've seen some evidence now to suggest that like the Dire Straits singles, it might be Friday 1 March 1985 instead. Editors rely far too much on the dates on Hung Medien and Discogs to be gospel... and the same goes for the artist's official website as well – Sergecross73 and I have said in the past we have often found these to be wide of the mark. Richard3120 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And even when you do find release dates in magazines they can be wrong as record companies move forward or backward the actual release date! As for Tears for Fears, I've corrected their singles' release dates – of course, to make things confusing, "Head over Heels was first released in Germany on a Monday, entering the chart two weeks later. If you assume roughly that it took two weeks after release to enter the charts in Europe, you could apply this to Songs from the Big Chair, which entered the German charts on 11 March (and so a release date of 25 Feb makes sense). There is a similar issue with their debut album The Hurting. Also, Record Mirror issue 23 Feb 1985 give the release date of SFTBC (in the UK) as 1 March. DPUH (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a one-size fits all solution here. It will have to be judged case by case. Another example of this issue with music releases is record labels. For example, Polydor is active in the UK and Germany, but releases as Polydor Records under license to Universal Records or Universal Operations which is a trading name for Universal Music Australia. There are lots of odd examples of this. In the example you have given with multiple reliable sources giving different dates, it might be best to quote a date range or month instead? Perhaps use {{efn}} to explain that this is according to X source? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@DPUH: It seems this discussion is pretty much over, but I have a concern. I saw on "Calling Elvis" and "Head over Heels" that you used 45cat as a source for the release dates. 45cat is listed under WP:NOTRSMUSIC as an unreliable source because the information there is user-generated. Is there another reason you added these sources that I'm missing? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the ref for "Calling Elvis", not sure why I added 45cat for that. As for "Head over Heels", one of the images on the 45cat link is a German press release/release sheet stating a release date of 10 June 1985, several days before its release in the UK. DPUH (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Request to expand Home Tonight in order to bump it from stub class

Hi, it’s me, KevinML! I have a request to expand the article for the Aerosmith song Home Tonight. Here are some ideas that I have in mind for this:

1) Add a “Background” or “Release” section. For instance, when it was released as the album’s second single, the band hoped that this track would be hit single like their classic ballad Dream On. However, “Home Tonight ultimately stalled at No. 71 on the charts.

2) Add a “Live Performances” section. This comes from the same source as my previous example. In live performances, Steven Tyler would occasionally perform a small segment of “Home Tonight” as an in-concert intro for “Dream On.”

3) “Composition” section This song is in Ab Major with a moderate tempo of 79 bpm. The song builds up in speed during the instrumental outro.

If any (or all) of these requests are valid, then can I add them into the article? Please let me know. Hopefully this would bump potentially bump the article up from “Stub” status! KevinML (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The key thing is to have reliable sources for all this. You can't use Setlist.fm or anything similar for stating the number of times they have performed the song live, because this website fails WP:USERG. Stating the key and tempo of a song is also tricky, because online sheet music websites don't necessarily show the original key of the song... they sometimes transpose it to make it easier to play on certain instruments. So these websites aren't any good either. Richard3120 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Here’s the source I used: https://ultimateclassicrock.com/aerosmith-rocks-track-by-track/

I still don’t know if this will be a “reliable” source, but if you can find any, please let me know because I’m trying to get this article to at least Start-class. Also I’m trying to find the song’s charting history on Billboard. KevinML (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ultimate Classic Rock is a reliable source, you're good in using that one. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, what Serge said – just make sure you don't copy and paste the text word for word, you have to write it in your own words. The Billboard Hot 100 chart history is here, confirming the song peaked at no. 71: [1]. Richard3120 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Home Tonight still a stub?

I just expanded part the article for Home Tonight by adding two new sections. Can I remove the Stub template from the article with the amount of content that I just added? KevinML (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on the status stuff - it's all subjective and optional stuff. Outside of the WP:GA and WP:FA levels, which require a review, people are free to classify them as they chose. Personally, I generally consider it out of stub status if the article size rises over 5,000 bytes in size. You're a little short of that currently around 3900. But that's just one person's theory, there's no objective standard. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also recommend giving Wikipedia:Content assessment#Quality scale a scan and seeing where it sounds like the article lands on there. Personally I think I would call it Start-class or at least close to it. You should work on finding sources for the statements that are already in the article, specifically that Dead or Alive 3 part. QuietHere (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, next time you should just reply to the messages in the first topic rather than creating a second heading for your follow-up. It's better to keep these discussions all in one place so they can be more easily accessed later. QuietHere (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs by key

The sub categories for this container cat are i.e. Category:Songs composed in A major. Now forgive me, unlike classical music, we rarely know the key a song is composed in, so I would think most of the entries not just fail original research but are in fact, just an assumption that the song was recorded in the key it was written. It also assumes, quite wrongly, that all singers sing the song in the same key.

This problem is caused by trying to follow existing categories for instrumental music, most relevantly classical music i.e. Handel’s Flute sonata in G major (HWV 363b), which apparently Handel wrote in F and it was transcribed by an unknown hand (source:WP)

To be of any use the category name should be something more along the lines of Category:Song recordings in the key of A major.

There is a discussion of key signatures and BPM above which is partly relevant to this discussion.

So, keep, rename or delete? What is your opinion? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've always thought that trying to definitively state any key for a pop or rock song was difficult. Foe one thing, many of these statements in song articles are based on obtaining the sheet music for the song, but sheet music often transposes the original key to make it easier to play. Songs often change key several times throughout the song as well. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

For most non-classical works, "Songs composed in X" should not be used. As pointed out, keys often change from composition/sketch to first recording to subsequent renditions. To be accurate, an article would need key categories for each version, none of which is actually a "defining characteristic" of the song overall. If that's what people want to see, there is the problem of finding reliable sources. Apparently, several of the popular key/BPM websites use an automated process and, as noted in the earlier discussion, without sufficient oversight, they are prone to error. Sheet music often does not identify a specific recording and may be transposed for a particular instrument. IMO, keys should be left to actual discussion and referencing in the main body to actually be useful. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The referencing in the body of the article is often to sheet music, though, so that may be redundant as well. I'd forgotten to mention that different versions of a song could be in different keys, so that's another problem. Richard3120 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In view of comments, I have now nominated the whole 'songs by key' tree Songs by key deletion proposal. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: and Richard3120 All you have to do is make the category Songs ORIGINALLY RECORDED in and make it compulsory that the song has to have a source stating that this is the case to avoid OR. It wasn't a massive issue. It was a useful category system for musicians. I suggest we recreate the category with ORIGINALLY RECORDED key criteria and that articles have to be sourced to include them. Who says categories shouldn't be used for non-classical works Ojorojo? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

But as Richhoncho stated at the beginning of the thread, in pop and rock music there almost never is any source stating the original key of the song. It might be stated in song-by-song biographies for major artists, like Revolution in the Head about the Beatles, but in general there will never be any reliable source stating the original key of the song. The only way would be to listen to the song and determine it, but that would be original research. Richard3120 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right on that, that is often the case, and often the transcription type sites as you say aren't reliable or have been transposed. I thought it was a nice feature to be able to find songs in F# minor etc for ear training purposes and to study chord progressions that's all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, I'm sure musicians and singers would find the categorization useful, and I wouldn't be against it if we could make it work. I just don't know where we would find the sources for most songs. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The first problem is verifiability which is insurmountable and the claim here that it is useful to musicians is silly because, as we have already discussed, different recordings will be in different keys, just plain misleading. I did suggest that some variant of 'song articles by key' might be acceptable and that was thrown out as not defining. Seeing as support for deletion here and at CfD has until today been unanimous there doesn't seem much more to discuss. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

[Responding to ping] To clarify, my previous comments addressed "Categories:Songs composed in X major/minor/etc." "Categories:Songs originally recorded in X" would be less problematic, but, as has been pointed out, finding accurate reliable sources is difficult. Pinging the other participants in the deletion discussion: Marcocapelle, LaundryPizza03, QuietHere, Sentree, SarahJH07. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

We also could have problem with six keys:

• Db major or C# major?
• Bb minor or A# minor?
• Gb major or F# major?
• Eb minor or D# minor?
• Cb major or B major?
• Ab minor or G# minor?

Also we can have some problems with the thing, if key is major or minor, like Nobody's Wife. Before these classes were deleted, it had been categoried to key of F# major although real key would be more probably D# minor. Almost all lead sheets tell that the tonic chord would be a minor chord. The song begins with chords "D#m – Badd9 – G#madd9 – F# , C#/E#".

And what could be good enough source to the key of recording? Also, there are songs whose recording sounds like something between two majors or minors. For example the recording of Ray Charles's song "Hallelujah, I love her so" sounds like something between Bb major and Cb major. ^{(Either Bb major a bit too high or Cb major a bit too low.)}--Sentree (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to see this created at all as its subjective due to the lack of reliable sources. Furthermore, songs that have been covered multiple times may have different keys. Finally, should it be Song recordings by key? When it comes to production we refer to song recordings because multiple versions of the same song might exist. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like we are all musicians here. I agree that there's potential issues with enharmonic equivalents and that some older tunes are often slightly out of tune between keys, Cecilia is another which springs to mind. I just thought it would be useful for people studying music and ear training to be able to find tunes in the same key. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How about jazz songs and national anthems?

We have these classes also with jazz songs and national anthems, for example:

• Category:Jazz compositions in G-flat major
• Category:National anthem compositions in B-flat major

If the song in class of Gb major jazz compositions, Have yourself a merry little Christmas, was really reworded in Gb major, how could we know, if it was composed in Gb major? And same with national anthems. In that category that I linked, there is my country's, Finland's national anthem, Maamme. I know that very many bands play it in Bb major, but do we know if it has been composed in Bb major also?--Sentree (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, and the only reason I did not nominate these after songs by key was deleted was my lack of knowledge of jazz or national anthems. Vocal tracks will always be in the key suitable for the singer, which generally get lower with age... --Richhoncho (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lorraine cycle#Requested move 13 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lorraine cycle#Requested move 13 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Links 2 3 4#Requested move 30 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Links 2 3 4#Requested move 30 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Single-vendor stream counts

A discussion has erupted about whether YouTube view counts for every song should be included in their articles, regardless of whether this detail has attracted a mention in third-party sources or not. Rockmusicfanatic20 has decided to add 36 million views, 7 million views, 5 million views, and even 1 million views to articles as if they are noteworthy achievements. What is the community's take on this and is there time there should be a streaming version of WP:SINGLEVENDOR? Is there already some precedent in place to prevent such additions? I would appreciate any help. Regards.-- NØ 17:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say it's generally not worth mentioning unless a third party source makes note of a particularly noteworthy achievement. (For example, Loudwire noting that Foo Fighters song Everlong hit a billion views on YouTube" or something.) Generally speaking, if someone wants to know how many Youtube views something has, they should be checking YouTube, not an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Second to everything Serge wrote. And I agree with the expansion of WP:SINGLEVENDOR. In general, I feel like enforcement of that guideline should be stricter than it is. Without any reliable publications bringing them up and making them seem like actually valuable information, these numbers feel like meaningless fun facts which don't fall within WP's scope. Maybe 36m is a really big number, but I couldn't find any sources talking about it so making it seem important by adding it to an article edges a bit too close to WP:UNDUE for my taste. QuietHere (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I edit similar info on K-pop related articles and similar to what Serge said, we usually note views milestones only (once covered by reliable secondary sources ofc), e.g. if an mv is an artist's first to reach 10 mill views, or is the fastest to reach 50 mill in history, or if crossing 100 mill views makes the artist the only act to have 10 mvs do so, etc. But just generally adding the current view count for no reason other than to have it stated is pointless and unnecessary and I'd remove/revert that. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. And unless someone wants to spend half their waking hours continually updating the count, the number is going to be out of date very quickly. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I once brought this up with Rockmusicfanatic20 on "Somewhere I Belong" (see here). They said they added it because "hundreds if not thousands of articles have music video views on them." Not to sound boorish, but that is the worst Wikilogic I have ever heard. YouTube is technically a single-vendor streaming platform, so all information regarding music video views aside from what Carlobunnie was talking about above should be removed. I for one am uninterested in how many views a YouTube video has, and I'd bet a lot of readers feel the same way when they encounter these inconstant statistics time and time again. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding or omitting captions for lead cover arts

I stumble upon articles about songs, including ones from the 20th century. I see some or many articles lacking image captions for lead images, especially in infoboxes. When an Article contains an inaccurate caption, I have to correct the inaccuracy... in every article I see. When an article omits a caption, a reader may assume that the image was used in worldwide release... and wouldn't bother researching and compare. Of course, newer singles have used universal cover arts, making captions unnecessary. How long must I continually correct captions in every article if the issue is not that serious? Additionally, if not alternatively, I can change images as I have often done, but then I can encounter opposition as I have had. George Ho (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, you don't have to continuously do anything, but WP is a collaborative effort, so if you see something wrong and it can be fixed then do it. If others disagree, that's where discussion comes in. Idk if captions are an absolute necessity, but they're good for reducing any potential confusion a reader(s) may have. If a single/song has multiple cover artworks associated with it, I don't see an issue with using a caption to identify the particular artwork version being used in the article. That is after all, one of the purposes for which the parameter exists. I've seen it across Wikipedia for both song and album cover art and have done it myself. There being only one universal artwork for a song/single would be an obvious exception like you mentioned. Replacing cover artwork is a more "drastic" measure imo, so I can understand receiving pushback for that, especially for e.g. if the replacement is a version not as widely associated with the music release as what was orig in an article. But then that is where a good caption on the orig artwork would easily resolve things no? If the discussion doesn't share your opinion, or the caption addition is continuously reverted, then just leave the page alone (even if it bugs you). Speaking from experience, some things on WP are just not worth fighting over/for. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we're all volunteers here on Wikipedia. Its a hobby, not a job. If you don't enjoy doing something, then stop doing it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Old Dan Tucker under Featured Article Review

I have nominated Old Dan Tucker for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Monkey Gone to Heaven

I have nominated Monkey Gone to Heaven for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Taps#Requested move 30 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Taps#Requested move 30 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh!

I don't recall many songs that sounded familiar, and that were modern that I can't find WP articles about. This is a 2021 song that has already been used in commercials for Pizza Hut, Toyota and BMW. Can anyone find enough about this song to stub out an article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have a few sources now. Can someone help me expand the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I think this is going to be deleted or redirected as non-notable. We can't help expand the article if there are no sources, and the references that you have added are not good - Apple Music isn't a source, a position at the bottom end of the NZ Bubbling Under chart is not really evidence that the song is notable, and I don't think the Looper article passes WP:RS... in any case it barely says anything more than telling you the name of the song. Richard3120 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Richard3120 [2] this source seems to have some weak editorial process.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know this project's thoughts on Banger of the Day, T4C, or the Times of India's website, but they at least exist and might be worth adding. That's all I could find though, and the article as is would probably just get merged to the band's page. In fact you might be better off doing that yourself now just to save the trouble. QuietHere (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No way is Banger of the Day a reliable source - it's essentially a one-man blog run by an aspiring musician from North Carolina with occasional contributions from his friends. I think Top40Charts has already been considered unreliable, but in any case that looks like a press release from the record label to me. And Times of India is just a link to check out the video. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I've started an AfD here. Sorry @TonyTheTiger, guess it just wasn't meant to be. QuietHere (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is not sufficient content for this subject. Hoping for help at AFD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:4 Da Gang#Requested move 26 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:4 Da Gang#Requested move 26 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh! certification?

I don't know how to research certifications. Has Sheesh! achieved any certifications?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're trying to establish notability you might struggle. The "in pop culture" section isn't notable per WP:POPCULTURE - its an indiscriminate list of song appearances. If said appearances or uses of the song garnered coverage i.e. a critic praised the use of the song then it would be notable. As for certifications - its unlikely if the song hasn't charted but there's no single website for certificates. Given the song is by an American band I'd check RIAA first - Recording Industry Association of America. There is a list of other certifying bodies around the world at List of music recording certifications. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see – here are Surfaces' certifications in the US: [3]. If I look on the UK's BPI website [4] I only get a certification for "Sunday Best". Richard3120 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity of Origin of Songs

Authenticity by personal testimony from People who were there or have knowledge of the origin, writer, and other details around the origin of a song. AGAcitizen (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@AGAcitizen do you have a question here? Not clear what this message means. QuietHere (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I would imagine that it's in relation to this edit. Personal belief or opinion is not allowed on Wikipedia, if that's what you're asking - it constitutes original research... other editors have to be able to verify the information independently. Richard3120 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that would make sense. I saw Liz's response to it here and wondered what that was about but didn't dig any further. But yes, I agree with what both Liz and Richard have said. This is not the place for this (assuming this message is indeed related to that one, still can't actually tell). QuietHere (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Certification

I know that the certification criteria try to accurately reflect the times as use has shifted to digital download and then streaming. Is it now possible for a song to be certified without ever charting (Possibly not counting any streaming charts)? Are there notable songs that have achieved this status?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually very common now for a song to receive a certification without ever charting - in fact, there are at least two songs that have been certified platinum in the UK which have never even been released there as singles, let alone charted. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this generally for major artists. I.e., does every song on a Taylor Swift album get certified individually based on download sales?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about Taylor Swift, but one popular band that seems to get certified more frequently than the rest in the UK is Arctic Monkeys. Out of all the songs on AM, only one has yet to receive a certification from the BPI ("Mad Sounds"). "Mardy Bum" from Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not is certified double platinum without ever having been released as a single. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Tony, it's not usually based on download sales at all these days, as nobody buys or downloads music any more... certifications are almost entirely based nowadays on the number of streams from sites like Spotify and Amazon Music, and YouTube views. Richard3120 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

In Denmark there are two different certifications for digital and streaming. Eurohunter (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Really? I can believe that there are two different certifications, but I would have thought it more likely that it's like RIAA in the USA where they have certifications for physical product and certifications for digital products. Richard3120 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The US has some separate ones too, but they're generally overlooked in modern times. I think the terminology we on Wikipedia use is "component charts" - not really ones we tend to document. We generally only look at the sales/streaming combined charts nowadays. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I'm thinking charts, not certifications. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Example: Track platinum and streaming platinum. Eurohunter (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: thank you. Yes, I think "track" here means sales (physical + download), so similar to the USA. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I think it's hard to say if "small countries" include physical sales to total sales. From what I remember most certifications are based solely on digital sales without notice. Eurohunter (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In this case physical release - it had to be vinyl. Eurohunter (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of certifications, I've came across pages over the past year or so which have certification figures outdated. The song gets certified since, but the editors who add these don't remove the then outdated reference at that point as the sales have clearly shifted more and more as new thresholds of sales have clearly been met. Some recent examples of my edits: Love The Way You Lie, I'm With You, What Makes You Beautiful. If any of you come across any outdated figures due to updated certifications in future. Could it be possible for you lot make sure to remove them so the units are accurate to the certifications? I come across too many and I'm surprised that no one else has done any of this yet. I'd appreciate that, thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you here, but experience tells me this doesn't sit well with a few select editors ([5][6]). I would have removed these sources and kept the new numbers if it weren't for cases like these, so I've been stuck in "update limbo" for four years now. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a hangover from the time before streaming when certifications and physical sales definitely were not the same, so it made sense to add a source for the (usually) more accurate sales figure. But now as physical sales are negligible and all streaming and downloads get tallied automatically, it really doesn't make an awful lot of sense to have both unless you are making it clear that these are physical sales, separate from combined sales units. I think this is where the confusion lies, as the certification table doesn't allow for this distinction to be made clear to readers unless you add a note. Richard3120 (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You do make a valid point, because most of the time I've seen this occur have been older songs before the streaming metric was added to overall chart sales. But most of the time, the sources talk about the overall chart sales after the streaming metric was introduced into chart sales in 2015, meaning they all equate to the streaming units and pure sales together at that point unless the reference was made before this time. Unless sources specify pure sales after 2015, it's best to assume they just mean overall chart units. New songs update in certifications each week, songs don't stop selling completely. They always update in sales and say a song sold 250,000 units in the UK in 2017, but gets certified Gold by the BPI in 2022 in excess of 400,000 units. This then renders the previous reference sourced to an updated figure from the original Silver certification (200,000) redundant and pointless because it's no longer accurate due to the new certification. If there is a commercial performance section for the song, you could move it there and it's been certified since. This could be a workable compromise as long as there is a designated commercial performance section for each song. It would keep the certification threshold of figures intact rather than the table disregarding it due to an inaccurate figure because of the update. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rockmusicfanatic20: @Richard3120: It's related to discographies because you can't add units based on certification levels but you have to add reference with direct cited album name and units number. So if album sold Platinum 600,000 they want to keep direct source with exact figures so if there is news article written due to occasion of 400,000 Gold certification or 429,612 even if it's outdated. Eurohunter (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you when it comes discography tables, but those also get updated when new articles come out to report newly updated specific figures for a certain country. These don't often get updated but you're not allowed to add certification units as references for sales in discography sales as they always have to be from third-party sources. We have to keep those figures there regardless of certification unless the reported figure is updated in future articles which then replace those reported sales for the sake of updates. Keeping this same principle in mind, we also do this for certifications where available. If someone adds an article reporting the song to have 250,000 sales after it gets certified Silver for 200,000. That's an update for the figure of 200,000 of which that figure of 250,0000 would be acceptable to include per the updated figure. This, however, would be invalidated by the point the song gets certified Gold for 400,000 units, because the BPI clearly states that 400,000 units as the sales threshold to be certified Gold, this renders that figure out of date when there is a new figure available. Song article certification tables work the same in principle as discography table album sales columns but they are different scenarios. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

Launched Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learn to Fly (Surfaces and Elton John song) last week, no responses yet. QuietHere (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Split off into stand-alone article?

I wondering if anyone thinks that there's enough in JVKE#"Golden Hour" per WP:NSONG for it to be split off as the stand-alone article Golden Hour (song). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so – there's barely any sourced content there apart from the chart positions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We need to talk about Pure Charts (www.chartsinfrance.net)

Hello!
It's been a question that's been going through my mind for quite some time. Should we use Pure Charts as a source in music articles? It's an essential question, hence this sole source is responsible of calling some songs singles (e.g. "Free Woman", "I'll Never Love Again"). Sometimes that information is verified by other sites (like in "Love Again" or "End Game"). However, FrB.TG brought an argument in the Talk:Bad Romance#Release history, saying that the site is not secure and not a high-quality source. What do you think? infsai (talkie? UwU) 19:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Going of their About us section, I'd say no. It is described as being authored by music enthusiasts. There's no information about its editorial processes or who its contributors are. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: So, you're suggesting that we should remove this source from any article it is in? infsai (talkie? UwU) 12:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't support its use either. If you need charts, you can go direct to SNEP. And the rest of the site looks like a news aggregator from better sources. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Just because a reliable source picks up information on a random website does not mean that website is reliable. There's no information about purecharts editorial process opr the credentials of the authors. I don't understand why people get so interested in individual release dates for songs. It really isn't that important. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It has been cited in books by Rowman & Littlefield, Bloomsbury, Liverpool University Press, Taylor & Francis, Indiana University Press, Journal of French language Studies published by Cambridge University Press. It's kind of hard to argue against citing it when it is used by university book publishers. Heartfox (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that some of the blacklisted sources at WP:RSPSS have also been used in books. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

So Richard3120, Lil-unique1, Heartfox, what should we do with articles using Pure Charts? There are plenty of song articles that would have to be reconstructed, hence they are using the source as a single indicator. infsai (talkie? UwU) 16:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to never to cite it in music articles or not to use it to support a song's status as a single? I would only agree on the latter point at the moment. It might not be a high quality source, but I'm not going to ignore six university presses because of two Wikipedia editors. Please go to RfC if you want to blacklist it entirely. Heartfox (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree - the way its been cited in other sources is usually for interviews which are fine. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:VA nominations

I have opened discussions regarding the following songs at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5: "All I Want for Christmas Is You", "Cielito Lindo", "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" and "Scarborough Fair (ballad)".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Music ratings

Page watchers may be interested in Template talk:Music ratings#Merged. Izno (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Chart performance

Now that "The Christmas Song" has cracked the List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles in 2023, could someone with proper charting expertise add a prose chart history section for this song.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• P.S. is it possible to do something like the big chart at Last_Christmas#Chart_performance?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• P.S. make sure the other 7 holiday songs that were in this week's top ten have current chart history explanations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Are you unable to do this? Its not that difficult, you just have to find appropriate sources a.k.a. chart listings and follow appropriate formats which you could get from any GA or FA song articles. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Take Me Away (Lifehouse song) possible deletion

I think the above could be deleted. It's an unsourced stub and while attempting to flesh it out more, I discovered that the song only charted on one US radio chart (whose ref I added to the page today) and nowhere else. There was prev a UK entry in the Charts section, but the OCC website only lists "Hanging By A Moment" and "Spin" as charting so I removed it. There's nothing by way of dedicated reviews for the song either. Only minimal mentions in reviews for its parent album Stanley Climbfall, which I've also been expanding by and by. I plan on creating a section in the album article to discuss details about some of the individual tracks, including "Spin" and "TMA", so the radio chart info would be mentioned there. Thoughts? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want to delete this article (or rather, redirect it to Stanley Climbfall), you should start an AfD on the talk page. You could also be bold and just redirect it now if you think nothing is worth saving, but I highly recommend an AfD. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. It's now redirected. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't sure exactly what to do, that's why I asked here instead. Thanks for handling it! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a look at my edit on the two pages, you should know for next time XD >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Torch songs

Why there s no wider category for love songs? Eurohunter (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand what the difference is between these two terms. According to it's article, a torch song is a "sentimental love song". But most love songs would probably be considered sentimental too... Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

1. The torch song is a very specific subset of romantic songs. I'm surprised that article is as bare as it is given just how much coverage the subject must've gotten over the years. e.g. here's a whole book on the subject. Also worth noting the over 300 pages that link to it, including from some very famous singers such as Mariah Carey and Billie Holiday.

2. To actually respond to the initial question, I think that category would be overly broad to have on its own. I could see it being made as a container for smaller cats such as Category:Songs about divorce, but on its own it'd be too massive for its own good. QuietHere (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. I wasn't actually familiar with the term until now, so I didn't know. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk.

My apologies for not sorting this list down; please feel free to remove those that aren't actually applicable to this WP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)
2. Angel of Death (Slayer song)
3. Audioslave
4. Be Here Now (album)
5. Blood Sugar Sex Magik
6. Body Count (album)
7. By the Way
8. Christ Illusion
9. Concerto delle donne
10. Dookie
11. Doolittle (album)
12. Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
13. Dungeons & Dragons (album)
14. Eyes of the Insane
15. Fightin' Texas Aggie Band
16. Freak Out!
17. Fuck the Millennium
18. God Hates Us All
19. Godsmack
20. Hey Baby (No Doubt song)
21. Hey Jude
22. Jihad (song)
23. Joey Santiago
24. Leo Ornstein
25. Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
26. Loveless (album)
27. Mariah Carey
28. Nick Drake
29. One Hot Minute
30. Pearl Jam
31. Pinkerton (album)
32. Powderfinger
33. Reign in Blood
34. Rock Steady (album)
35. Sex Pistols
36. Sky Blue Sky
37. Smells Like Teen Spirit
38. Sonatas and Interludes
39. South of Heaven
40. Stereolab
41. Still Reigning
42. Supernature (Goldfrapp album)
43. Surfer Rosa
44. Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)
45. The Long and Winding Road
46. The Smashing Pumpkins
47. The World Is Not Enough (song)
48. Thespis (opera)
49. Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)
50. Tool (band)
51. Tōru Takemitsu
52. Uncle Tupelo
53. What You Waiting For?
54. Wilco

Struck out albums and bands/musicians from this list. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Cover songs that should be split

Now that WP:NSONG has been changed to allow covers, we should start making a list of songs that should be split out. Off the top of my head:

• "Barbara Ann", by the Regents, covered by the Beach Boys
• "Cum On Feel the Noize", by Slade, covered by Quiet Riot
• "Cocaine", by J. J. Cale, covered by Eric Clapton
• "Hallelujah", by Leonard Cohen, covered by Jeff Buckley
• "Hurt", by Nine Inch Nails, covered by Johnny Cash
• "I Heard It Through the Grapevine", by Gladys Knight & the Pips, covered by Marvin Gaye
• "I Will Always Love You", by Dolly Parton, covered by Whitney Houston
• "I'm a Believer", by the Monkees, covered by Smash Mouth?
• "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)", by the Four Lads, covered by They Might Be Giants
• "Quando, quando, quando", by Tony Renis, covered by Caterina Valente — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolcevita1956 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• "Scarborough Fair", folk ballad, covered by Simon & Garfunkel
• "The House of the Rising Sun", folk song, covered by the Animals
• "Twist and Shout", by Medley and Berns, covered by the Beatles

Obviously, most of these are influenced by the blinders of my music tast, so feel free to add to this list! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"Tainted Love", most likely. But do you think there's actually enough to spin out "Barbara Ann" and a couple of the others? If you take out the Beach Boys' version, there isn't much left in the original article that's sourced. This has always been my issue with having separate articles for each version, we don't have a criterion for the point at which a separate article may be valid. And when you have songs with lots of notable cover versions, like "Unchained Melody", I'm not sure how we would link to the other versions apart from a very long hatnote. But I know other editors feel very strongly that we shouldn't include all versions in one article. Richard3120 (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I think we just split out the ones we can – the nature of the scrunching that's happened in these articles probably means there's a lot more coverage for them if we look. As for "Unchained Melody", it may well be that the WP:PTOPIC should just be a WP:SIA. We might have "Barbara Ann" redirect to "Barbara Ann (The Beach Boys)" with a hatnote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Question - songs like "Hurt" have multiple versions, e.g. Leona Lewis also covered it. Would other covers not fully notable or notable enough for their own article remain at the original article? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I assume that would make sense. Just an idea here – for example with "Hurt", there could be the NIN info and then perhaps a heading titled 'Johnny Cash version' with a Template:Main to Cash's version's page. Then the other covers can be listed per usual under the 'Other versions' section. For any cover versions with articles, I would suggest only having a hatnote linking to the original version, so as to not clog up the top of the page. DPUH (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, just looking at the proposed articles above and a number would, in my opinion, have to have an overhaul to meet the ‘reasonably-detailed' requirement. Taking the example of "Hurt" again, Cash's version mainly consists of a large blockquote and bullet points. Plus, as Richard3120 has said above, I'm not sure how much information there is on the original version of "Barbara Ann" so that it wouldn't just be a stub if the Beach Boys' version was split. DPUH (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel the bar to split should be very, very high - both original and cover should be exceptionally notable in their own right. Not least because separate articles would inevitably duplicate key information from each other. In the list above, only Whitney's I Will Always Love You appears to meet that criteria. But even then that presents problems - is the Sarah Washington 1993 version inspired by Whitney rather than Dolly? Did she think she was covering Whitney? Its critical reception implies so, quoting Billboard with "There are no less than nine dance music covers of the Whitney Houston megahit..." Does this version therefore end up being semi-duplicated in both split articles? -- DarylKayes (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree with the need for a very high bar, or else we're going to face a lot of pointless duplication. Popcornfud (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I think the changes to WP:NSONG set the bar reasonably low. I can't see that has flowed on to actual article splitting yet, but the potential is there.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I also firmly agree. Having too many articles for cover versions will only confuse our readers, especially for songs that get covered frequently such as "Unchained Melody" or "Twist and Shout". We must make the qualifications stricter, before a chain reaction begins. Semi-duplication is also a glaring issue. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not think any of these make sense to split, nor can I really imagine a situation where it would make sense to split a cover version into its own article. A cover is necessarily going to be related to its original version – that means there will be duplicate information between the pages, forcing readers to flip back-and-forth for the full story. I see no issue with the way things are done now. Tkbrett (✉) 15:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The only change to NSONGS is a single sentence: "Notable covers can have a standalone article provided it can be a reasonably-detailed article based on facts independent of the original."[emphasis added] The wording only reflects that a standalone article "is permitted", not that one "should" or "usually/generally" be created. The guideline makes it clear that stub-type articles should not be the result.

Some articles takes a historical approach to the song and should not be broken up if it would leave them incomplete or require a lot material to be duplicated. Also, splitting an article may necessitate a rewrite of the lead for the original and a new one for the spin-off and, for articles that use harvard citations, portions of the bibliography may need to be changed. In the case of featured or good articles, this may result in not meeting the MOS criteria required for those articles. Unless there is some real benefit, song article articles should not be split up just because they can be.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: Have found the original discussion last spring that led to the new WP:NSONG wording - they reached a different consensus to the brief discussion so far here, although did not consider duplication issues -- DarylKayes (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat unfortunate as there doesn't seem to have been much discussion there at all, just votes with people explaining their rationale. Tkbrett (✉) 19:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it was publicized very well and only ResPM from this group participated besides the initiator. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I was lucky to come across it when I did. I would have notified the WikiProject myself, but I assumed the discussion wouldn't get very far at the VP. My bad 😰. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I see no use in splitting covers up from the original. It is the same song and readers will be interested (or surprised) to see that the version they know is not the original. If the song has a long history and/or interesting story of how it was conceived, it can be found on the same page. An example is exactly I Will Always Love You: readers looking it up thinking it is a Whitney Houston song can then see that it is not and exist in two versions from its writer before Houston recorded it. When the reason why Dolly Parton wrote it is given, it would give the emotional Houston rendition even more strength.

Another reason is: what to do with songs with multiple covers were some had some kind of success and could be called notable, but others not. Do we split the song in multiple pages only for the notable ones and, if so, which ones are notable? An example is Over The Rainbow: which of the 6 cover versions deserve their own page? bigar 08:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How about language adaptations as well? I was thinking splitting "Ahora Te Puedes Marchar" from "I Only Want to Be with You". The lyrics in the Spanish version have nothing to do with the original song as the article mentions. Also plan to split "Vivir Mi Vida" from "C'est la vie (Khaled song)". Erick (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Is what we're discussing going against WP:CFORK, or is this one of those completely acceptable types of forking? I can understand spinning off an article like "I Will Always Love You"—it's over 100 kB—but all in all, isn't that redundant? According to the "in a nutshell" box on WP:CFORK: Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Are any of the articles listed above long enough to warrant a complete spin-off? One of the first cover articles I remember seeing is Africa (Weezer cover), which is on the short side. The article for Toto's original is much longer, yet I don't believe spinning Weezer's version off was necessary at this point. I've seen children's books longer than that.

Doing this also risks "POV" editing. For example, on Over the Rainbow, the only version I genuinely care about is Eva Cassidy's rendition, so given the choice, I would have spun off that subsection and left the other versions to rot. Even then, Cassidy's subsection is way too short to stand alone. It's a similar case with her cover of "What a Wonderful World". The point is I'm not cherry-picking spinoff articles based on my musical tastes, but other editors may take the opportunity and run with it because WP:NSONGS says they can. Pretty soon, songs such as "Brændt" will be languishing in the shadows while articles for more famous cover versions of said track will be receiving a VIP treatment, which I don't perceive as neutral. Multiple policies are involved with this one, and even though the original RfC acknowledged that, I don't think we analyzed them too in-depth, especially since the appropriate WikiProjects weren't involved at all. Seems a little underhanded. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The wording "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" seems to only apply to a new article created, which is fine for "I Will Always You" where the original and cover are widely covered. But for "Torn", there's not much left if the Imbruglia version is removed for a stand-alone article. So does the original version, essentially a stub, get redirected? I would suggest a split should only occur where both articles can be reasonably detailed and meet GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, I was the one who split Weezer's version of "Africa" into its own article. As short as it might be, the potential is there, which is notability is based on anyway. Of all the covers of the song, Weezer's is the most popular, so it shouldn't be too hard. It is not just another cover, kind of like their cover of "Rosanna," also by Toto.

Another such example of not just another cover that should have its own article is Alien Ant Farm's cover of Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal, which remains Alien Ant Farm's biggest hit to this day. MoonJet (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it is not just another cover"? I see no difference as in it being a cover version of a song. What this different and importantly how do we distinguish these "not just covers" while keeping neutrality and avoiding personal bias. bigar 20:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was that the vast majority of covers should not get their own article. The examples I gave are some of the few that should, as they get far more coverage than the average cover would. There's no bias here. MoonJet (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the decision to change WP:NSONG was taken without the involvement of this WikiProject, not even a notification here that it was being discussed, seems very wrong and I think they reached the wrong conclusion. It also directly contradicts WP:SONGCOVER. Of all the songs discussed here, probably only Whitney Houston's cover of "I Will Always Love You" needed splitting because of its size (and certainly not Africa by Weezer). Whether a song should have a separate article is complex, I think a song may possibly be split if it is lyrically different, therefore may be considered a separate song that uses the same tune (but not if it is meant to be a parody), or has something substantially different that warrants it being discussed in a separate article, but it's hard to set a hard and fast rule. A discussion needs to be restarted on NSONG to modify the wording.

I think I'll just give some of the songs I've been involved in editing the last few months that may illustrate the things that need considering (not that they are necessarily the best examples, just that they are my recent edits so it's fresh on my mind, and they cover a much broader time period than recent tunes). Three songs that use the same tune - the French original "Les Trois Cloches", and two English versions "The Three Bells", "While the Angelus Was Ringing". "The Three Bells" is based on the French theme, but loosely translated, while "While the Angelus Was Ringing" looks to be lyrically different. I'm not sure if "While the Angelus Was Ringing" warrants an article (note though there is a different "While the Angelus Was Ringing" from the 1910s), but "The Three Bells" can be separated otherwise it gets messy because of all the different covers. "The Laughing Policeman (song)" and "The Laughing Song" could be two different articles (currently only one) because they are two different songs even though one is clearly based on the other. Should "Moon Over Naples" and "Spanish Eyes (1965 song)" be two different songs (currently only one)? One is mainly instrumental, the other has lyrics, but there don't appear to be enough content to justify two separate articles. Should "Turkey in the Straw" and "Zip Coon" be two separate article? Sources consider them the same song because they have merged into one, even though they weren't originally. Different folks song often may have the same origin (or difficult to untangle the origin), and different folk songs are often discussed as one, but what about folk songs that made the pop charts? I recently merged (and expanded) "My Bonnie (song)" into "My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean", should they have stayed separate? My contention is that they are basically the same song, even less of a case to be separate articles than "Scarborough Fair/Canticle" by Simon and Garfunkle. Hzh (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed concerns regarding the change to NSONGS and the apparent lack of notice here (where cover songs are frequently discussed) and at the actual guideline talk page. Perhaps it's time to revisit the issue more formally, as in an RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but what would be the best wording for the NSONGS? Hzh (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that should come out of a more focused discussion that doesn't assume that articles should be split and attempt to decide which articles should be. Some seem to still feel that splitting articles should be for exceptional cases – the former NSONGS wording "normally covered in one common article" allowed for exceptions, such as The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston recording). Whether certain criteria ("setting the bar") should be met before splitting up articles has supporters as well as the idea that the original article should not be rendered as less than "a reasonably-detailed article" due to spin-offs. There are other views to be considered, which should also be taken into account. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone can come up with good wordings for a new RfC then they should go ahead. Even reverting to the older wordings would be preferable. As it is it's just going to be very messy leading to maybe a half a dozen articles for the same song for songs covered by many artists. Some of them already mentioned like "Unchained Melody", "Over The Rainbow" and even "Hallelujah", also many others like "Mack the Knife" (two versions have won the Grammy, two inducted into the Library of Congress in the National Recording Registry), given that it was the practice for many artists to cover the same popular song in the earlier period, so you might get half a dozen covers charting at the same time. It would also make it extremely confusing especially when there are many different songs with the same name - the disambiguation page for some songs with same title is already getting ridiculous, and on that note, maybe someone should also come up with a better way to disambiguate songs (sometimes you need to click on half a dozen songs or more before you can find the right one). Hzh (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Would either Ray Charles version of Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) be a WP:FA without the content of the other?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move shenanigans

Heads up on Sockpuppetry or forum shopping or other shenanigans going on with recent votes at Talk:Second Guessing (song). 10mmsocket (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Categories

There's an ongoing discussion re: how albums are categorized over at WikiProject Albums:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Categories_violate_WP:SUBCAT

IMO, this discussion also applies to how songs by artists are categorized, so I would welcome members of this project to review and weigh in, too. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Waving Through a Window

Hello! I'm working on cleaning this article up a little and noticed a section has a maintenance tag saying it needs copyediting according to WP:SONGCOVER. Could someone from this project assist me in doing so? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've started by removing some that are obviously in violation of WP:SONGCOVER (sourced to Youtube, a social media website, Twitter, or an unreliable source) however I'm gonna need some help with the rest. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Other than removing non-notable entries which I see you've already done, I took out the infobox and image which were more obstructive than helpful (not that the image was any help at all, if I wanted to see what Katy Perry looks like I could just click through to her article which is linked right there anyway). I think that should be enough. QuietHere (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

None of them comply to WP:SONGCOVER in my eyes so all have been removed. I will keep an eye on the page as undoubtably some will be added again. bigar 18:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Michael Jackson claim as "the most-awarded music artist"

If anyone interested, this is an RfC about that debatable claim. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize that the statement that claimed Michael Jackson as "the most awarded music artist" was already removed from Jackson's article recently.

The RfC is only focused on adding a new sentence to Jackson's article, in order to state that there are some sources/estimates that regard Jackson as the most awarded music artist in history. But it is not about labeling him directly as "the most awarded" (since, as I said, that has already been recently removed from the article). Salvabl (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Focus track?

So I've just come across the term "focus track" here and got curious. Turns out this is apparently a music industry term I've never seen before, but I've found more sources using it ([7][8][9][10]) as well as this glossary with a vague definition. EN Wikipedia has a handful of usages, though most of those don't appear to be the same thing, and there's no page for it here. Is anyone else here familiar with this term? Is that glossary accurate and it's really that simple, or is there more to it? I'm not sure whether this information affects Wikipedia at all, but it seems like it'd be worth knowing anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Set On You

Hi, comments welcome at Talk:Set on You#Redir target. TIA Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

MENA Chart achievements

Topping the US Hot 100 or UK Singles chart is a big deal for foreign artists, so what kind of weight does a MENA chart achievement hold by comparison? If a song is the first by a singer from a particular country or of a particular genre to top said chart, is that a notable enough achievement to mention in the Commercial performance section? This is the Forbes ME article that sparked my question. Unsure if the Record Charts talk page would've been the better place to ask. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A-class article assessment

How to start article assessment for A-class? It's an article about the song "Fest i hela huset" by Swedish musician Basshunter. Eurohunter (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

FfD notice

Launched two FfD queries the other day (both here) which haven't gotten any responses yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Cedric Smith and Carrickfergus

There is a young account dedicated to ensuring that Cedric Smith (actor) gets sufficiently prominent credit in two articles, Carrickfergus (song) and Elemental (Loreena McKennitt album), for singing the lead in that song. I wonder whether anyone other than me thinks he is adequately mentioned elsewhere on the same pages. —Tamfang (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't be listed at Carrickfergus (song) due to the lack of a source, but then again nothing in that section is sourced so it's all up in the air at the moment. For Elemental (Loreena McKennitt album), check if he's credited on the album's liner notes. If so, it can be assumed to be sourced to that and that should be fine (though the article is otherwise a bit slim on coverage). I did remove the mention in the track listing because that's where writing credits should be going, but otherwise I don't see any immediate issues aside from potential notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

And now that I've looked at the edit history on Elemental and see that the track listing credit was at issue in the first place, let me emphasize that you were correct to remove it and also to come here to discuss the issue rather than continue edit-warring. Hopefully * Mistress of Magic * understands that multiple editors disagreeing with their change is a sign of why it's incorrect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've sternly warned them for edit warring and personal attacks. Sorry I did not see this sooner. Please alert me if there are any further violations. Or even if you're just having general issues of editors blatantly breaking policies. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted both edits one last time, believing I was right to do so though realizing after that I've basically just extended the edit war which was a silly move on my part. Didn't want those changes to stand, especially after all the mess over them where it's been made clear that consensus is against them, but if that was the wrong move then I apologize for making the mess any amount bigger. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on Mistress of Magic right now. They're ignoring WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BRD. They cannot opt out of sourcing and discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Somehow To Drive the Cold Winter Away has so far escaped such attention. —Tamfang (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That one only says the song "features vocals by Cedric Smith", not that his are the lead vocals which seems to be Mistress' main concern thus far. Since HE isn't the MAIN vocalist, he doesn't need UNDENIABLE credit where credit is due ! But in all seriousness, that's probably why they haven't touched it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Face 2 Face (Juice Wrld song)#Requested move 3 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Face 2 Face (Juice Wrld song)#Requested move 3 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

refname

There is refname parameter for charts table but what about certifications table? Eurohunter (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about Template:Certification Table Entry, it's in the documentation as "refname=" QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Thanks. It actually works, just I forgot that there was already certref parameter. Eurohunter (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sweden Songs by Billboard

Is Sweden Songs chart by Billboard notable? Eurohunter (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not mentioned on Billboard charts or WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS so I wasn't even sure it existed, but here it is. As for your question, do we know that it's not just republishing info from the Swedish charts we already use? If so, it would be redundant, but if not, I couldn't tell you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Charts are different. "Ingen kan slå (Boten Anna)" debuted at number 10 on Veckolista Singlar by Sverigetopplistan while it debuted at number 8 on Sweden Songs by Billboard. Eurohunter (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Billboard's international song charts are listed at Hits of the World. Whether every single one needs to be included in already bloated chart sections is up for debate. Some have their own articles, also debatable as most just contain trivia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Village Pump

There's an RfC going on at the Village Pump about cover songs that anyone interested should check out. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tell Em#Requested move 14 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tell Em#Requested move 14 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 21:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Categorization questions

I've been doing some cleanup on Category:Songs, and I have a few questions before proceeding on a few cleanup avenues. Do discographies belong in the subcats of Category:Songs by artist or other categories with song in the name? Do instrumentals/non-vocal works belong in categories with song in the name, as opposed to larger corresponding categories like compositions/recordings/works? Should Category:1970 songs be a subcat of Category:1970 compositions, along with corresponding moves for the hundreds of corresponding years/decades/centuries? I assume the answers are answers are no, no, and yes, but I'd like some input before proceeding. Thanks! Star Garnet (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rager

Would someone from songs mind taking a look at Mr. Rager#Legacy since it kind of looks like an attempt to WP:COATRACK and article about a book into the "Legacy" section. That section appears to have been added here in May 2020 as part of a major expansion/reorganization of the article. While there does seem to be some kind of connection between the book's subject and the song, it seems a bit odd to devote the entire "Legacy" section to it. Perhaps some of this can be trimmed, particularly the photo of the book's author and some of the excessive detail about the book. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Harej: This project makes use of the listings at WP:BADCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTSAVOID, and WP:NOTRSMUSIC for sources to avoid. Unfortunately, many articles still include many of them (usually SPS/UGC/blog type sites). Would articles that use these be flagged in a bot report? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ojorojo, it's great to know that there is an existing sources list for the project. I would work with the project to make sure that those source listings are included in the database. Harej (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic discography

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic discography#Couldn't the list be smartphone-friendly?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion encompasses both the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic discography and My Little Pony: Equestria Girls discography articles. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking for help to improve Plastic Love

Hey everyone, I've been working the last month or so to improve the article for "Plastic Love" with the goal of getting to GA or FA in the future. I think I've scoured the internet thoroughly enough to find and use most reputable English-language sources, and I've been able to find a handful of Japanese ones with the help of Google Translate. That being said, I think the article could still use some work - specifically on its critical reception and on the actual recording process of the song itself. As it is right now, the article relies mostly on English-language sources, so I'm not sure it's at the best state it could be.

Ideally, this article would include contemporaneous media coverage in the 80s of the album (think album reviews, news pieces, etc.), modern articles which discuss the song from a critical or retrospective lens, or interviews with Takeuchi herself. However, I don't speak or read Japanese, so I'm kind of limited in how I can research here. If anyone who does have a knowledge of Japanese and has access to these sorts of resources is able, I would greatly appreciate your help in this research. Toa Nidhiki05 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

AllAccess to discontinue operations?

Reportedly, AllAccess has discontinued operations on August 15. The site will now remain online for "an undetermined amount of time". The "Future releases" links seem to have been removed from the format menus. Have we discussed an alternative? This will probably have huge ramifications for our process of classifying singles.--NØ 06:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: I never heard about this website, and it looks 20 years outdated. Eurohunter (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

References - how to archive

How to archive links to songs at ASCAP and BMI? The final results are redirected to Disclaimer. I see some BMI archived versions exist at List of songs recorded by Westlife. Eurohunter (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Move request for Silver Train (song)

An editor has requested that Silver Train (song) be moved to Silver Train, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Dark Eyes' origin?

A discussion Talk:Dark Eyes (Russian song)#Sindo Garay got stalled and can benefit from extra eyes looking at the issue. In short, some Cuban musician in his interview apparently claimed the authorship of very well-known Dark Eyes (Russian song). No independent claims (either confirming or denying it) exist, but Lute88 insists on the current version of the text that describes this WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim based on the interview with the claiming side alone (primary, non-independent source). If you are interested, please join the discussion using the link in the first sentence (Talk:Dark Eyes (Russian song)#Sindo Garay). Викидим (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Inertia article

Since AJR's song "Inertia" got a music video yesterday, i'm thinking of making an article for it. Should I? ThatOneWheatleyGuy (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@ThatOneWheatleyGuy: Do you have reliable sources that show that the song is notable? I suggest reading WP:YFA if you do decide to go through with it regardless. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 17:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll try and find some sources, thanks for the tips. ThatOneWheatleyGuy (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Vocal type

How is this type of vocal called? (0:51-1:14) Eurohunter (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's most likely heavy reverb and delay. It's also sounds either pitch shifted, or formant shifted. Captainbratwurst (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...)#Requested move 7 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...)#Requested move 7 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on a draft of mine.

I'm writing a draft on the song "Cannibal" by Tally Hall. I'm fairly proud of it, but I would like some feedback. Is anyone willing to do so? I'm relatively new, so any and all critique would be accepted. Thanks!

Link Gaming gamer 9001 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"The Other Girl"

There is a discussion here about whether or not to move The Other Girl (song) to The Other Girl. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for It's All Coming Back to Me Now

It's All Coming Back to Me Now has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

How to describe sound/music?

Anyone knows how to describe the sound or structure from a song? Sometimes there are some unique sounds or structures in music and no one pay attention to it. There are a few general words from music theory, but for me, it's not enough. I mean, some people can feel some emotion to a particular sound. Basic tags such as "uplifting" etc. are not enough to find more examples of such music - sometimes there is something cool in one song, and you want to find it in other songs, but there is no way to describe it so further research is impossible. Eurohunter (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is awfully vague to give much of an answer, so I think all I can say is either use the music glossary for help and use direct quotes from reliable sources when necessary? Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Yes, but it fits more to "ancient" than "modern" music and for example you can listen 1000 tracks described as "mysterious" or "emotional" and you can't find "this" thing which you heard in one particular song. There are a lot of examples I'm looking for, and I can't find any more tracks like them. I also tried to check how particular song is described by critics in its reviews, but often not found anything interesting. Eurohunter (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I personally just direct quote or paraphrase descriptions reliable sources say about songs/albums. I don't have any other advice to give. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I mean my perspective is to actually find music first then write article on Wikipedia about. Eurohunter (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Why doesn't "just using the descriptions reliable sources use" work with that? Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I will show you an example. I just found this example and there is really no way to find exactly this vibe in more tracks. Eurohunter (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to restart my argument to better illustrate where I'm coming from. You, as an editor, should not be interpreting and describing the music in your own words. That would be original research and is not allowed. You need to find reliable sources that describe the songs themselves, and either direct quote the reliable source, or paraphrase how they describe it (while adding it as a source). If you can't find reliable sources describing the music, then you shouldn't be writing about a song's sound. You should not be listening to Youtube songs and wondering how you personally would describe it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Describing songs and editing articles are two different things, and I wouldn't mix them. Apart from this, you need to know the song exists then you can find sources and write article about "The Way I Are", "Freaky Like Me" or "Remember the Name" etc.. Eurohunter (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know if it's a language barrier or something, but I'm struggling to follow what exactly you're talking about here. Perhaps someone else will be able to understand and help you better. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter Excuse me if I've also misunderstood, but it's starting to sound like this topic doesn't belong here. If your concern is not to do with editing articles and just with describing songs in other context such as a conversation, then a Wikipedia talk page is not the place to bring it up. We're here to discussing Wikipedia editing and operation only. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere: @Sergecross73: I meant something other. If there are no sources describing that song, there is no article on Wikipedia. I'm in a place where I can't find song, then I can't find sources about it, and finally I can't write an article on Wikipedia. For example, If I discovered this track I can now search for sources and write an article about it on Wikipedia (track only added as example and there are no sources about). Eurohunter (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

So you're struggling to find sources for a song, I see that. Is searching by the artist's and song's name not good enough? If you did that and nothing came up, perhaps sourcing just doesn't exist. The example you shared was only released eight days ago on YouTube, and just two days ago on Spotify, so perhaps reliable publications just haven't gotten around to covering it yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere: No, it's wider. I'm struggling to find song first. Eurohunter (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I just could explain it in this way. If you have some song that you like, and it has some characteristic part, so you would like to find more examples, but you don't know how to call it to find more songs with such part. Eurohunter (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a question related to editing Wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Yes, it's a wider question, but without knowledge there is no Wikipedia. If you have knowledge, then you can find sources. Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be better off letting this one go. I don't think you're gonna get the response you're looking for here, given it's been multiple months and the only respondents so far have both been more confused than anything about what you're asking about and why it's relevant here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What are editor's thoughts on the definition of Song? I'm caught in an edit war elsewhere that seems to hinge on a song having lyrics that are sung, as opposed to an Instrumental. Is an instrumental a song? Even the linked page in the previous sentence refers to "instrumental song" but there are some editors who believe if a musical composition has no words, then it is not a song. Does the old English definition still hold true, or is a more modern interpretation to include instrumentals?

And where does rap fit in with this definition? If the composition has words, but they are spoken with rhythm and rhyme but not sung, are we to exclude rap "songs" from the definition as well? 204.111.238.28 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll probably want to start a new discussion thread on this. This discussion is already old and convoluted, so it's not likely to be noticed by many here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

List of top 10 singles in X year (France)

In case anyone is looking to clean up some lists:

The scope of the lists of top 10 singles in X year (France) articles are "list of singles that have peaked in the top 10 of the French Singles Chart" (i.e., the SNEP charts). However, List of top 10 singles in 2020 (France) and List of top 10 singles in 2021 (France) refer to Billboard's French digital sales charts, whereas List of top 10 singles in 2022 (France) and List of top 10 singles in 2023 (France) cite to tubesenfrance.com, which tracks iTunes/Amazon sales. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why any of these top-ten lists are needed at all. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Because they're useful to readers, who might want to know the top 10 for a particular year, and not every song on a top ten list will necessarily be independently notable. They also meet NLIST and CSC as they are "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nasheed#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nasheed#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces and UtherSRG: I've noticed that you are using rmCloser to post these notices on WikiProject talk pages. FYI, my RMCD bot used to do that for all requested moves. However, many WikiProjects, including this one, are subscribed to article alerts. Thus, your notices are redundant to the notices at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Article alerts. I made my bot stop posting notices to AA subscribing WikiProjects, after some of them complained that I was spamming their talk pages with redundant notices. So, I'm wondering if, especially if you're putting significant time into this, whether it's the best use of your time. I can think of a lot of backlogs for more important things, that could use more help from editors like you. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 I honestly have been noticing changes in terms of numbers of participants at RMs that I notified WikiProjects about, which makes me think posting at their talk page would not hurt at all. I mean, there were some RMs I closed as "move" because there was literally no participation and that is probably because the pertinent WikiProjects were oblivious of them. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't do it on a regular basis; ie, I don't patrol to do this. I only do it when I land on a RM in some other fashion. rmCloser's author has a backlog of updates for the tool. Perhaps they can make it more aware of which WPs have AA subs? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG that suggestion sounds very good. Pinging @TheTVExpert. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

American Songwriter

Can someone advise me on the reliability of this publication? It seems okay on the face of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Decent editorial team and their coverage is usually high quality. Reliable.--NØ 21:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Article Title for an OST

Hi, I want to make an article about an original soundtrack because I thought it's notable enough to have its own article but because it has a popular title I was kind of confused on how to add the disambiguator. Should I named it "Song Title (Singer-name song)" or "Song Title (Work-name original soundtrack)" or you have more correct one? Please help me decide, thank you in advance! Zhglobal (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's for a song then "Song Title (Singer-name song)", but if it's for a soundtrack album then "Film Name (soundtrack)", unless it has a unique name such as Songs and Artists That Inspired Fahrenheit 9/11. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about critical reception

Hello, is there a specific number of reviews for a song allowed on an article's critical reception section? I read through this article and couldn't find a clear statement on it. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would there be an arbitrary limit? There could be five paragraphs of critical reception; as long as it is a summary (often done by grouping paragraphs into reception themes), the number of reviews shouldn't matter. Heartfox (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox Ah okay, thank you! AskeeaeWiki (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're asking about {{music ratings}}, that is limited to 10 ratings, as mentioned in the template's documentation. As for prose, like Heartfox says, there are no specific limits. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was asking for prose. I was making edits to the article for I Feel It Coming and wondered if there was a specific number of reviews allowed to be mentioned, so I went here. Thank you both! AskeeaeWiki (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zorra (song)#Requested move 4 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zorra (song)#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Facts (song)#Requested move 5 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Facts (song)#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Yes, And?

There is an RfC going on at Talk:Yes, And?#RfC about Infobox cover about the usage of single covers that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--NØ 14:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is stalled and still needs more feedback. Many thanks in advance.--NØ 17:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Kau Ilhamku

I've noticed that the "Kau Ilhamku" entry appears to have a strong promotional focus on the 2015 cover/remix version, giving less emphasis to the original Man Bai song. I'd like to propose edits that rebalance this focus and offer more historical background on the original. I've located some reliable secondary sources that discuss Man Bai's version in more detail. Would anyone be interested in collaborating on these edits? nMyghet (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Covers in covering artists' categories

Noticed recently that it seems to be a common practice to include a song page in songs by artist categories for artists who have varyingly prominent covers of those songs. For example, Mötley Crüe songs currently includes "Helter Skelter", "Like a Virgin", and "Tonight", all of which include relatively brief mentions of Crüe's covers of those songs. "Jailhouse Rock" was also in there (as well as in ZZ Top songs and the Blues Brothers songs), but I removed it due to a complete lack of mention. To me, it doesn't seem proper to include these cats at all unless the cover is a very prominent (per DEFINING) part of the article, such as "Torn" being in Natalie Imbruglia songs, but I'd like to know how other editors feel before I start tearing things out further. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of the worst examples of this that I have come across are Category:Alvin and the Chipmunks songs, Category:The Muppets songs, and Category:Andy Williams songs. Fans and/or completists wanted to categorize every song each recorded or performed. With many artists recording albums of covers (or series of them like Barry Manilow and Rod Stewart have), we certainly shouldn't be categorizing each song these artists have recorded in this manner. I do remove them as I come across them and encourage you to do the same. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Song title caps

Is "Dirt off Your Shoulder" capitalized correctly? Should "Off" not be capitalized instead? I don't see any mention of "off" in either MOS:TITLECAPS or MOS:CAPS, and while I know "on" is typically lowercase in titles, I don't seem to remember the same rule applying to "off". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:TITLECAPS says "Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (as, in, of, on, to, for, from, into, like, over, with, upon, etc.); but see above for instances where these words are not used as preposition" So surely "off" counts just as much as "on"? That list ends with "etc." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, that explains it. I see from wikt:off that this particular definition would count as a preposition so I guess that does it. Thanks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, unless "dirt off" was some kind of odd verbal phrase like "brush off"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC) p.s. it would be much easier if that example list just included the word "off"! Perhaps you could suggest that. Thanks.

WP:NCSONG also confirms that song article titles follow those guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Using video thumbnails as cover artworks

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 February 27#File:Poison Song Cover Image.jpeg about using video thumbnails in the cover= parameter of the infobox for songs from the musical animated series Hazbin Hotel. Thanks if you can find the time to weigh in with your opinion. Ss112 14:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zerox (song)#Requested move 1 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zerox (song)#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)