Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Full discographies?

I have a question regarding single tracklists. Although I understand that a tracklisting should be provided, I don't believe that every version released should merit its own tracklisting on the page, simply because it's trivial and repeats the same information. Has this issue been addressed before? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead song article importance

I have been having a discussion between myself and Indopug and myself about the importance of several Radiohead songs. Around last week, he redirected many of the song articles by the band to their respective album page. The songs he redirected were not singles, and he cited the songs as non-notable. There were some songs he redirected by mistake (e.g. "I Might Be Wrong") because they were released as radio-only singles. But I disagree with his redirecting of the songs because, in my opinion, some are significant enough to have an article, whether they are singles or not. The edits he made were on May 14th, so anyone can view the articles being disputed. I also stated that some songs that have a music video which makes them notable as well because they're being distributed to TV, like a song being distributed to video. Main question being asked: do songs not released as a single or music video still have articles? (Note: some songs by the band, released as music video and not a single, are also being disputed.) —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability/non-notability isn't really the issue. The question is whether there's enough material in reliable sources to make a separate article. In the case of a lot of album tracks there really isn't that much to go on. Flowerparty^☀ 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I guess that whether the article about the song is or isn't a single is not really the case anymore; what really matters is that the article has enough adequate sources to make it stay. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability is an issue. See the notability section on the project page, and at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs. Even many singles are not notable enough to merit an article of their own. The main ways a song can be notable are:

• ranked on national or other significant music charts,
• won significant honors or awards, or
• performed independently by several notable artists

In addition, there must be sufficient verifiable material to make an article worthwhile. Songs that don't meet these criteria should redirect to the article for the album they came from, or perhaps to an article about the band. Note that it is not sufficient that the band be notable. Even many songs by famous bands like Radiohead will not be notable.--Srleffler (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested Articles Page

If no one is watching the Requested Articles page to delete the fulfilled requests then I volunteer to keep it in order. By the looks of things no one is and there is no bot to deal with it. Machete97 (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

found a strange editor - vandalism ?

check out Jhovstkepp

Machete97 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 4343 articles assigned to this project, or 16.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Song lists

I was sent here from WikiProject Music after posting the following.

<copy>

One night I was watching a music channel which had a video medley of two songs. I got to thinking of other songs which might do well as a medley but with a word in common in the title. I had also watched something else, can't remember what at the moment, which made me think of "Like a Prayer" by Madonna. So, thinking of other songs with prayer in the title, got me to also think that there might be a list of songs by keyword on Wikipedia then thought again knowing that lists like those more than likely didn't exist. However, the idea stuck with me as I searched my music collection for other songs with prayer in the title.

Now, does anyone think that lists like those might be useful? I have a sample of a keyword entry for you to give thoughts about. If you think that it is useful, I could move that page to this project for you to work on. If not, I will just get the page deleted. - LA @ 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whiskey in the Jar

There is an edit war currently raging at this article concerning the inclusion of the song's lyrics in the article. If anyone here would like to add their opinion or knowledge here, it might help to resolve the tedious revert contest. Thanks :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Category redirects

What is the group's feeling about category redirects that are of a non-preferred form? For example:

• Category:Buzzcocks singles redirects to Category:Buzzcocks songs (I've found about a dozen like this)
• Category:Songs by Willie Dixon redirects to Category:Willie Dixon songs (I've only found a couple like this)

Since category redirects don't work like page redirects, I tend to think they are sloppy. I believe that a bot goes around and fixes anything that you put into them, so they don't cause long term problems, but I also think the naming scheme for subcats of Category:Songs by artist is easy enough to follow without these around.

I have nominated a similar album category redirect for merge/delete and it appears that not everyone agrees with me, so I thought I'd ask here before nominating a bunch of song categories. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a (minor) dilemma.

So I'm trying to figure out if an article is named correctly. Currently, the article is at The Wonder Begins (it is referring to a "mini-album" by Korean group the Wonder Girls). However, it is basically a glorified single. Actually, no, it is a single; they just gave it a different name. So I'm debating whether to leave it as is or to move it Irony (song) (the main single from the "mini album"), which doesn't seem quite right either. The same dilemma was present for So Hot but thankfully, the song and single had the same name, so I could essentially create it as a "song" article and discuss the "single" release. However, would I be able to do that for The Wonder Begins as well? If so, what name should it be under?? (Thanks in advance.) SKS2K6 (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

In the first paragraph or so it says that "many people consider this to be the deepest rap song ever" is there a citation that could prove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.168.251 (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which article? Is it Keep Ya Head Up? -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Scream/Childhood

Hi there. I was surprised to find one article on two different songs. How common is this, and is it best practice? It was a double A-side single, but I thought Wikipedia did articles on songs, not singles. Shouldn't they be two separate articles? (I could quite easily find enough sources to justify two, I think.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

They should be separate articles. The fact that they appeared on the same disc is irrelevant with regards to article naming. -Freekee (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category question

Recently I nominated two songwriter categories for deletion at CfD because I felt they were underpopulated: Category:Songs written by Anthony Smith and Category:Songs written by Leslie Satcher. The former contained only two songs, and the latter only one; yet somehow, Satcher's category survived CfD (link) on the basis that similar "Category:X songs" and "Category:Songs written by X" categories are acceptable even when only one song fits the criteria. Looking at Leslie Satcher's contributions, I can verify that there is almost no hope of expansion for her category. (She's written a #8 country hit, a #12, one song that's currently charting in the Top 20, and three or four mid-thirties, that's about it. The #8 might warrant a page, but I doubt you'll find anything on the other songs.) Because of this, I would like to establish a separate guideline for songwriter categories. It's been my experience that songwriters don't get nearly as much coverage as the artists who record the songs, so I would think that a writer would have to have a larger repertoire before warranting a category. Furthermore, some acts only seem to songwrite on the side; Keith Stegall, for instance, has only a couple credits as a songwriter, but much, much more as a record producer. Also, there're plenty of songwriters who never, but never, write on their own, so is it really right to categorize as "songs written by X" when X co-wrote it with Y and Z? This is why I think the whole Category:Songs by songwriter tree needs examination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where I stand on the question of a general guideline, I'll have to give that some more thought. But I do agree (I think this is what you're suggesting) that songwriter partnerships would be better dealt with as joint categories, i.e. Songs by Abc & Xyz, rather than in two separate categories for Abc and Xyz. Case in point, Category:Songs written by Roy C. Bennett and Category:Songs written by Sid Tepper. Their articles indicate that they always wrote together -- though it's not clear if one handled the music and the other wrote the lyrics, in which case I would think they should each get the appropriate categories for those activities, along with a new joint category, Category:Songs written by Roy C. Bennett and Sid Tepper. Cgingold (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I Hate (Everything About You)

Okay, I may not be a member or this WikiProject, but I just noticed something. Why is there parenthesis around "Everything About You?" All the sources I checked about the song don't have those. I think the article should just be "I Hate Everything About You." Who thinks it should be moved there? SAVIOR_SELF.777 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

C class

C class support needs to be added to {{Songs}}. Grk1011 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox single}} help

Anyone wanna help me clean out Category:Single articles with infobox field chart position? It's backlogged out the wazooty. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A Couple Good Sources

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think that the Rolling Stone interview w/ Mick Jagger on December 14, 1995 is an excellent source that will help give readers more insight on coverage of the Rolling Stones. The same goes for Steve Appleford's book of the mid 1990s. In the coming months, I would like to put some edits that I hope you all think will give more readers information about the Stones. V Schauf (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube official videos

I have a query if I used a YouTube video as a link for a pop song. As long as its from the official musicians YouTube channel is it permissible? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good question. There would be no copyright vio if the owner was the one who uploaded it, right? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that to be the case as well. I see no problem with putting in a youtube video as long as it's official (perhaps that point can be debatable, but whatever), since the artist and/or record company are putting it up anyway. My question is, are details like add date and view count important enough to be included as well? SKS2K6 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What I've seen before are edits like "the video has been viewed 10,000 times already on youtube" that kind of thing is definitely not allowed. Would the video just be a random link? I've used interviews uploaded to youtube as the url before for sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone confirm it one way or the other please? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as the video on YouTube is officially licensed, i.e. uploaded by the label rather than a fan, it's fine to link to it from the External Links section or using the {{external music video}} template. Please do not add information like "The video has been viewed 5,349,343 times on YouTube" to the article, however, unless that information has been published in a secondary source (and is notable). Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This actually begs another question. Would embedding a video inside an album page be acceptable?

Let me give an example. In the Kenny Chesney album Lucky Old Sun (page doesn't exist yet, I might have a project to start there), the first single is "Everybody Wants To Go To Heaven". Kenny has a YouTube channel; his official video link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MIJShOqh8Q for this song. Can we have the video itself embedded in the album page or - more appropriately, perhaps - in the page discussing the single?

If this is allowed, this would create a new editing project; embedding official videos on YouTube that are now in the free use domain. Embed code guidelines appear on YouTube, and if compatible with Wikipedia, it would be a nice addition IMO. What do you think? CycloneGU (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if the video was hosted by the record label or an official account without a watermark and under 30secs(?) then you can do that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So no full-length videos, even in the public domain. I guess those 30 second ones would be hard to find on YouTube, labels only post the whole thing.

I may post an example for discussion.

CycloneGU (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Bojangles - Inconsistent Information

I would like to bring light to an inconsistency in the information contained on Wikipedia re: the song "Mr. Bojangles," which has been recorded by many artists.

It is noted in both the article about the song "Mr. Bojangles" and the article about Bill "Bojangles" RObinson that the song is, in fact, not actually about Robinson himself. However, the article about the song notes that it is also NOT about New Orleans musician Babe Stovall. The article about Bill Robinson then states that the song IS about Babe Stovall.

If anyone has documented information about the actual person inspiring this song, please help us out. Perhaps there is a dedication in the liner notes of the recording, or something of that nature? Thank you.

Choirmugs (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If You Never Come to Me (Inútil Paisagen)

This song has the wrong title. It should read "If You Never Come to Me (Inútil Paisagem)" with an m in the end of the POrtuguese title, but I don't know how to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.60.82 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll move it to the correct title. --Rodhullandemu 18:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of the Beast (song) (Iron Maiden)

Regarding the brief article on the Iron Maiden track 'The Number of The Beast', reference is made to 'CapitOl Radio' and it is linked to the 'Capitol' disambiguation list accordingly. However, the article has not been proof read for factual accuracy, as the name of the station is 'CapitAl Radio 95.8FM' as it is London's premier commercial station, and Iron Maiden are, primarily, from the Walthamstow area.

If you read the CapitOl disambiguation list, you will notice that there isn't any mention of a radio station going by that name.

I have attempted to change the link myself, but I am evidently no good at link diversion as it never works! Could some kind soul clean up the article for me...?

--Margo (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Song

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cover versions

The current consensus for cover versions seems to mention the original song first and put noteworthy cover versions in the same article. The result looks like a sequence of articles all stringed together. In some cases it would be a better solution to create separate articles for cover versions. As I can see, the disambiguation by band name is only used if two songs have the same name by coincidence rather than being cover versions. Any suggestions ? Inwind (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Sweet song title

Check out Talk:Ballroom Blitz#The song is called THE Ballroom Blitz. The discussion, I think, raises an interesting question: When the same song by the same artist is inconsistently named on different albums and singles, how is then the name of the song (and hence the article) determined? Anyone with an opinion is kindly invited to comment. – IbLeo (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

merging Infobox Single & Infobox Song

{{Infobox Single}} and {{Infobox Song}} seem to be used interchangeably, I have proposed that they be merged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember Me (Journey)

Hello guys. I'm going to attempt to write an article on this song, which appeared on the Armageddon soundtrack. However, I have no access to any refs besides two MTV articles that sort of mention the song 'in passing'....

• Secondly, I cant find if it was released as a single? (or even on one of their CD's?)
• Lastly, my pitiful beginning of an article is located at User:the_ed17/Remember Me (Journey).

Thanks for any help guys. Cheers! —the_ed17— 17:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it was released as a single. It is somewhat notable in the fact that it was the first Journey song recorded with a new lead singer. It is possible someone may redirect it to the Armageddon article, since the song itself could be construed as non-notable and the same info is contained within the soundtrack section of the article. Anyway, for the time being, I moved the article to Remember Me (Journey song) per WP's naming conventions for songs. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to join a conversation

This current discussion is open for anyone who wishes to comment. The final goal is to end disruptive edit wars. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

acharts.us

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#acharts.us for a discussion of the reliability of acharts.us that is relevant to this project. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't Give You Anything (But My Love)

Can't_Give_You_Anything_(But_My_Love) seems to be a stub written by someone unaware that the song was not a Stylistics original but was in fact a cover of an already well-covered song circa 1928, for which there is already a page: I_Can't_Give_You_Anything_but_Love,_Baby. I think the former should just be deleted, but I'll leave that to someone who knows what they are doing here. I only noticed this because I heard the song on the radio and noticed the lyrics were the same as the Louis Armstrong version which is the only one I'd ever heard, and a little searching later, I found this conflict. If deleted, the link from The Stylistics should be pointed to I_Can't_Give_You_Anything_but_Love,_Baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.230.109 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem I've noticed elsewhere; for example we have both Release Me (1946 song) and Release Me (Engelbert Humperdinck song), even though it's the same song.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright/Time

Just a question about the name of this article. This single by Supergrass is known as "Alright" by pretty much everyone, so why is the article for it called Alright/Time? I know it's a double a-side but it doesn't even tell us anything about other song, "Time". Is it really the best name for it? I think it should be changed back to Alright (Supergrass song). Anyone have anythnig to say about this? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked a similar question about Scream/Childhood a while back -- see a bit further up this page -- and as I understand it, it should be separate articles for each song. So Alright (Supergrass song) would be correct.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Singles that are no longer charting

Is it grammatically correct to use "It has" like "It has reached number eight"? A review in one of my GANs said that "has" should be removed unless the single is still on the chart(s). While in one of my experiences here, it should be "It has" since any single can chart again, for instance, ten years from the time it fell off the chart. Which is correct? --Efe (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Instrumentals vs songs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Instrumentals vs songs, where I have raised some concerns about discrepancies in the way we deal with articles about instrumental recordings. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Charts on television shows

I know adding the peak position a song has made it to in a television show (such as 106 & Park and TRL) to the charting table is inappropriate. I'd like to know, is it also inappropriate to have this info in the article at all? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 01:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My Prerogative

Resolved

 – Remerged by Ericorbit two weeks ago. --Amalthea 21:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the Britney Spears' cover of My Prerogative was split earlier today to a standalone article at My Prerogative (Britney Spears song). The talk page mentioned an older consensus from mid 2006 not to do that with cover versions. Is that still the guideline? I cleaned up after the split, but would not mind if it were undone again. --Amalthea^Talk 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR of Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)

Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Three Little Birds (Connie Talbot song)

Hi, just seeking a little bit of input here. The article concerns the first single released by child singer Connie Talbot, which just happens to be a cover of a Bob Marley song. The way I look at it, this would be allowed to exist if it was not a cover, but, because it is, concerns have been raised that it should be merged with the article on the original version. The fact that this is a cover has nothing to do with its notability (every song on her album was a cover) as no one is pretending that it's a work of artistic genius, and people do not talk about it because it is a cover, but because it is the first single from a very unusual artist, and has charted in the UK and U.S.. So, my question is, should this be merged? I'd normally just shrug my shoulders and let it be merged, but I was hoping that I could scrape it up to GA status, allowing the articles on Talbot, her album and her single to form a good topic. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternate covers

An admin is trying to get alternate covers to singles deleted as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 even though they are different. If anybody is interested in contributing to the discussion, it is taking place here. There are other images on that page up for discussion, but that seems to be the one the admin is willing to discuss. --JD554 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If its a cover for an album's deluxe edition, that is debatable, IMO. But if its for singles, I think it hits the guideline. --Efe (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see they seem to be different covers for different regions. --JD554 (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times and it seems no one has put this to an end. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tables and lists

What is exactly the guideline when using tables and lists? In most song- and album-related FAs, they go after the prose. --Efe (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked a similar question here that you may be interested in. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This question is primarily asked about Viva la Vida (song). Efe feels that the track listing should go towards the end of the article as it is a list. However, I feel that the track listing is key information about the song and should be after the main background/reception prose but before further prose to do with less important subjects such as the music video and lyrics. --JD554 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I always put the tracklistings after all the main article sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If that's the conensus I'm happy to go along with it. It just seemed to make more sense to me to have such important information higher up. It might be worth having the guidelines updated to make it clearer. --JD554 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JD554; the page should be updated. It seems that a lot of music writers are adhering to it. By the way, aesthetically, FA reviewers agree that adding lists in between breaks the prose. --Efe (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Titling Spanish language songs

Hi, I would like to remember you what I wrote about Spanish language song titles and nobody took it into consideration, not even answered either. Please search for it in the previous archive. Briefly: according to the rules of Royal Spanish Academy, in all the song titles only the first word goes with initial upper case, noone else (except if there are proper names in the title). Please, do NOT rename the titles that I've renamed to the correct spelling form. Anyway, attention should be paid to all Spanish titles, because they are generally full of spelling errors (mostly the accents are missing, besides the upper-case habit I mentioned above). Thanks for your attention. If you have any doubt about Spanish spelling, just ask me. I'm present also in the Spanish and the Hungarian Wikipedia. --El Mexicano (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Unfortunately, it's a shame that most of Hispanic artists don't care at all about the correct spelling in their works and I dare to say, it's because they don't even know the correct spelling (as a 80% of the Spanish speaking world doesn't know it due to the bad education), sorry, but that's the truth. --El Mexicano (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hero (Mariah Carey song)

There is currently an issue with the article Hero (Mariah Carey song) where I am involved in a discussion about an Irish political video being included in the article. More opinions welcome at Talk:Hero_(Mariah_Carey_song)#éirígí Alternative Video. (Posted here due to project tagging). Regards, Woody (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Hero (X Factor release)

An AFD, located here, has been opened regarding the recent fork of Hero (X Factor release) from Hero (Mariah Carey song). All interested editors are invited to comment. If you have a deletion discussion list then feel free to move this notice there. Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock 'n' Roll Train

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Rock 'n' Roll Train with regard to the formatting of the title of this AC/DC song, and I was wondering if anyone here can help. AC/DC usually format it all in capitals thus: ROCK N ROLL TRAIN. Sometimes it appears thus: ROCK N' ROLL TRAIN. Given that decapitalising the 'N' is acceptable, what do we do with the apostrophe(s)? Grammatically there should be two, one either side of the 'n', but do we defer to what AC/DC (sometimes) use? It should probably be noted that on other AC/DC titles, two apostrophes are used, e.g. "Rock 'n' Roll Damnation", "Rock 'n' Roll Singer" etc. Thanks if anyone can help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually on the CD's backcover they use small caps, i.e. "Rock N Roll Train". -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reason To Believe (song) Rod Stewart

I understand this song was written by Tim Hardin, but I have a theory on the song meaning. I don't think artists pick songs just to pick them, I think they select songs because they have some meaning to the artist themselves. This song may have had some meaning to Rod Stewart. These are my thoughts, since I cannot find any cited meanings to the song in general:

I think this song is about a couple, one who loves deeply (the singer) and his/her misguided love for someone. The singer implies that they have been brainwashed by a trusted person (Someone like you makes it hard to live without somebody else) and that now the mental cloudiness has cleared. The singer now sees the subject person as they really are, not as they were imagined by the singer. But what is repeated, over and over, is the theory that if one continues to promise things, as in the past, that the singer will eventually 'settle' for being betrayed (If I listened long enough to you I'd find a way to believe that its all true); as if waiting and hoping will make the singer forget what torture they have endured and accept the treatment they will receive (Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried Still I look to find a reason to believe).

It is a futile plea, as if hearing the words will make it easier to see how foolish it is to wait for someone to change their ways. It never has, nor ever will change, you have already shown your cards, you are a fool to love this person. They will continue to hurt you, no matter how many times you forgive them. But there is always a "reason to believe" it won't happen like this again. ref: lyricsdownload.com/rodstewartVforce (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

{{External music video}}

Recently, this template has been widely used by editors. Is there an agreement to use such template in infoboxes? --Efe (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the template was created by a Wikipedia administrator. And if you go to the actual template page, I don't see why adding the video would be a problem as long as it follows the guidelines (but then, how often is that?...). But no, I'm unaware of any discussion regarding this template (but I don't follow the talk pages too often, so one could have happened earlier). SKS2K6 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Singles Discography" Template

Hopefully this is the right page for this. A user recently made an incredibly large "Singles Discography" template for singer Sakis Rouvas. The discography is already linked through the singer's main template, and the singles discography template is almost entirely not linked since they are just songs. In Greece a single generally gets released from an album only to radio stations along with a music video for television, instead of the traditional cd-single. If it is notable enough, or does get released as a cd-single, it has its own page. Anyway, I don't know what to really do with the singles discography template. It seems a little excessive, especially since almost all of the songs are not linked (and not that notable, so they wouldn't warrant their own page), while the discography is already linked through the main template. Any help on this subject would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the idea of a navigational template is to navigate, which this clearly doesn't do. WP:NAVBOX states things like: "navigation templates provide navigation", "the goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space". The only relevant links are already covered by Template:Sakis Rouvas as you point out. I'd say put it up for deletion.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article rating

Who exactly has the authority to rate the articles on their respective talk pages? Ones like Sidewalk Talk? El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who knows the guidelines for each level. Its best if you make a section on the talk page for your reasons for the assessment level you assigned it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Devil Run

It is my opinion that the song Devil Run should be credited as belonging to John "Rabbit" Bundrick, written in 1974, and not Eric Burdon, who covered the song and included it on his latest album, Soul of a Man, released in 2006.

Of course, this is all unnecessary if the album on which it was originally released (Dark Saloon) is not on Wikipedia due to lack of notability, and no releases of the song are individually notable, i.e. appearing on any charts.

Please provide your input. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Massive non-Free Fair Use Song Sample Uploading?

Recently I saw Wikipedia is gearing up for a huge media undertaking. I have a lot of compact discs that I have (I'm an audiophile) extracted to good quality files. I think I understand Fair Use and am starting with my favorite albums uploading a low quality (Ogg 0) 10% length or 30s (which ever is less) track to each of the track listings on these existing albums. Will this stuff be ripped down by someone deeming it "unencyclopedic"? Where do I draw this line? I have a lot of classical music (this is what I have the most questions about), classic rock, jazz, blues & even a bunch of very recent (not-so-popular) indie rock. Please let me know if I am wasting my time. An example is Hunky Dory that I did last night. eldavojohn (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard.

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may concern you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

summary

There is request of third party commentary on the summary on the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Summing up. The summary specifically addresses the issue of the inclusion of public domain song lyrics in Wikipedia articles. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Run To You - Bryan Adams

Just to let you know, Run to You (song), is currently undergoing a reassessment of it's GA status. Any comments welcome at the talk page. AlexJ (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List class

It appears either the bot or the template is broken. Nothing's in Category:List-Class song articles, instead they are in the Unassessed category. 75.4.144.73 (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Homes of Donegal

Perhaps one of you song experts would look at The Homes of Donegal. The complete lyrics are quoted in the article but I believe those lyrics are still in copyright so fail WP:SONG#LYRICS. I have provided a reference to its 1955 publication on the talk page. TIA ww2censor (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There are contradictory statements within this page and WP:SBS. WP:SBS says that succession boxes are to be placed at the end of an article. Most I've seen but this under the references section but above any navigational templates. I think this way is more appropriate when navigating through the succession of songs because you know to go to the bottom of the page to find the succession boxes.

This Wikiproject page says to put the succession box in a charts section, but I think it is misplaced there in terms of how it fits into the article. The charts themselves provide information on the song. The succession boxes are a navigational tool (like the artist templates) that allow one to move across from one article to the next and should be apart from the article itself. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Was there a discussion regarding the use of infoboxes? Can it be used for non-notable songs whose versions have gained notability? Let me clarify my concerns. The original version of "Please Read the Letter" wasn't released as a single; in 2008, it was rerecorded and released, and is a Grammy-nominee, which prompts me to establish its own page, as a single. Another user put up an infobox for the original version. It is allowable? --Efe (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I cited Gold Dust Woman as a similar example. There are also plenty of other song articles in a similar position of having two infoboxes. Note the original song appeared on a charting album Walking Into Clarksdale. Both are different versions, one a straight rock song and another a folk song. Also the song and the single were produced by two different teams. MegX (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another example is "Dangerously in Love". --Efe (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As MegX mentioned, different recordings of the same song should be on the same page. I've always felt strongly about this, and the rule is followed in most cases, though not all. I think the rule should be added to the project guidelines. But to address the question more specifically (if belated), I'm not sure if all those articles need all those infoboxes. Yes, if they are single, or otherwise significant version. I'd say yes to the song infobox on "Gold Dust Woman," but personally, I wouldn't have added any of the others. -Freekee (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish songs

There was a recent addition to the subsection "naming":

In foreign language song titles (for languages using Latin letters), keep in mind the spelling rules of the foreign language. E.g. if the song title contains accent marks in the correct standard spelling for the song language, you should write it the same way as in that language. Also remember that in some languages, like Spanish, only the first word of a title goes with initial upper case (except for proper names in the title), so try to avoid titles like *Entre El Mar Y Una Estrella (correctly: "Entre el mar y una estrella").

Any reaction to it? --Efe (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion also occurred here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Correct_spelling_of_Spanish_language_titles. --Efe (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, check out the equivalent guidelines (third and fourth paragraphs) at the Albums project. They're a recent addition, and the discussion is here. -Freekee (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

two questions

I'm trying to create a page for the song Winter Passing (song) by The Academy Is... I've done a first draft using my user page as the creating your first article page suggests and I used another of their singles as a model plus the single template, but I have a question about using that album artwork,here's the link to the album cover, Can I use it or can't use it under the copyright rules? I didn't understand what it was saying about what could and couldn't be used and how. Also the box at the bottom that lists the singles how do things get added there and from what I've heard His Girl Friday is not officially the next single someone heard it played on Sirius radio and posted an entry on the official livejournal community theorizing but it was clear they were meaning it as a theory for the next single not a definite so how would that get subtracted?
And while I'm asking questions how does what I've got so far on my user page as a draft look? now I know they are links to a blog but it's the offical blog of the lead singer William Beckett it is linked on the band's official site as well as some promotional videos for About A Girl/pre-ordering Fast Times but it's more references than their other singles have and it's been used to source stuff before(I know if you look it's mostly me but some I did ask on the talk pages before I added and it was okay). Sorry if anythings said blatantly on a page I may have missed it or not seen that page or not understood it completely Musicobsessed6 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I also asked this here, Wikipedia talk:Your first article Musicobsessed6 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Figured out the box myself and created the page but I still have a question about using the album artwork and if there is anything else I need to add Musicobsessed6 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The album cover can only be used to illustrate the album on the album article. You'll have to find an image of the single to use for the article about the single. For more info about uploading covers, see the Albums project, and Wikipedia:Album#Cover. If the image you linked is, in fact, the cover for the single, you can still follow the guidelines in that section. Hey, why is the Winter Passing album not mentioned in the band article? -Freekee (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

it is a one song single not from an album there is no evidence either way if it'll ever be on a full album, look under releases on the band's official myspace [1] or I think someone said something about a preview on amazon other than that I think it's exclusive to itunes and it is mentioned on the band's article I just added a internal link to what was already there Musicobsessed6 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

it's on amazon as a single I think here's the link should I link William's blog or this? I do not know what is up with that release date I remember now going to preview it December 1st and it was not buyable till the actual release date of the next day December 2nd but I got it off itunes myself Musicobsessed6 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I was confused because the infobox says, "from the album Winter Passing (single)". Wasn't sure what that was supposed to mean. Please remove that from the infobox code. Just leave the "album" field blank. Also the lead paragraph mentions "the album cover". Just call it the cover of the single or the packaging artwork or something. -Freekee (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

okay thanks, I didn't know to leave it blank and I put that because that's what shows on my ipod and itunes beside the song sorry it was confusing. I have fixed that stuff and added the cover Musicobsessed6 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Roy's Keen by Morrissey

At a Morrisssey concert in Dublin in 1999 or 2000 Morrissey wore an Ireland national football team jersey on stage for the song "Roy's keen". He said that "someone told me to wear this jersey in honour of Roy Keane for this song EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM". To state on the Roy's Keen Wikipedia page that the song is about him is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.36.101 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a link or a reference for this? -Freekee (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Long list of cover versions

Just wanted peoples opinions and perhaps policies on cover versions within songs. There are some songs which I've been editing in which people have been adding cover versions where in many cases takes up 2/3 of an article. Many of them by artists I've never heard of and many live versions that aren't recorded, all of them uncited. Is there a policy on what cover versions should be added to a song by another artist? I'm also thinking that perhaps the best solution to this maybe to construct a table and have only notable artists that have a recorded version added chronologically, though I don't know how other editors feel about using a table for this. MegX (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think live versions should be added pretty much every band I think at one point has covered something live, but that's a guess on the amount, I don't those are notable enough to be included but I think as long as they've recorded it they should be included well maybe not every maybe just the one's that have been released in some way, so they can be cited, such as The Academy Is...'s cover of John Lennon's Working Class Hero was released on their From The Carpet EP stuff such as that should be very easy to source reliably and be consider relevant enough for the respective articles. sorry if that doesn't make sense I'll try and explain if it does and I used TAI as an example because I'm very familiar with that band(not in the know them personally sense) and that's what I know I've seen in that songs article when I was trying to find if there was any connection between the original and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Musicobsessed6 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright lyrics

Would someone please check out the The Homes of Donegal because I believe this fails WP:SONG#LYRICS. According to this book Walton Publications, an Irish music publishing house, copyrighted this in 1955. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed as according to the article (mcBridge died in 1996) a copyright on the lyrics would still exist.--Richhoncho (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

There are discussions regarding categories for Bob Dylan and the Ramones at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 6. The discussion could have far-reaching implications for this project and it might worth a look to read and add to the discussion, if you feel so inclined.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs

For anyone interested, I've just completed an extensive pruning of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs. Officially the list still contains 1800+ missing song articles but it should be noted that some of these articles do exist but under a slightly different name. They show up as red links and I've created a few redirects to resolve that but I haven't had the patience to check this out extensively. There are also 800+ articles about notable songs that are lacking infoboxes (for the infoboxists out there). Also, I'm not a regular of the SONGS project but there were a few instances where existing articles had been replaced with a redirect to the album but without merged content. I suppose you guys have had extensive discussions about what makes a song notable but I just thought I'd point out the fact. Oh and if you're wondering where that list of notable songs comes from, it's mostly from Billboard charts. Pichpich (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags

Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. The banner for this project has now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for cover version

When, if ever, does a cover version of a song merit a separate article from the main article about the song? From what I've observed, the answer seems to be "almost never". (I'm preparing to AfD such an article and want to make certain I haven't overlooked anything.) --mwalimu59 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was released as a single by the band covering it, it would have a case. Likewise if it had significant coverage on music channels, radio, or other recognised media. In other words, if it was notable in its own right, only then would it have a case – not a sure-fire keep, but a case to be determined on its own merit. – B.hotep •talk• 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would go with "almost never". But you'll have trouble getting it deleted, because the answer is "merge," which is a keep. On the other hand, you'd have at least garnered a consensus for merging, which might help fend off an edit war. -Freekee (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest, however, that nominating for deletion as a means to gaining consensus for a merge could be seen as a bad faith nomination. If an editor wants to gain consensus for a merge that should take place on the relevant articles' talk pages. Instructions for doing this can be found at WP:MM#How_to_merge_pages. --JD554 (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for instrumentals

I'm trying to clarify how articles on instrumentals should be disambiguated, if anyone wishes to express an opinion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#(instrumental). --Zundark (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

pendulum song cult citation

looking at the propane nightmares page, it occours to me that the person who wrote the atricle may have got the wrong cult as they they claim the music video is based on the heavens gate cult whereas it seems more like the peoples temple based on the location, the methods etc and the ends result. by the way i didnt know where to put this so i put it here, sorry if its in the wrong place

Amr40 (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The best place to mention this would probably be that page's discussion page. You could change it yourself, if you feel up to it. I caution that neither the existing version or your corrections, should be there without some kind of citation/reference. However, I believe that correct info without a ref is better than incorrect info without a ref. If you're certain that's what's going on, do it. -Freekee (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

This user and I are having a minor problem about whether or not "Vivid: Kissing You, Sparkling, Joyful Smile" should be listed as a single for Best & USA. The user is saying that it doesn't count as a single for the album because it was used to promote the artist tour (which he hasn't proved a source for). Then he says because all three songs aren't included on the album it doesn't count as a single for Best & USA. I replied saying that since a song was included it's a single, because this has happened in the past with the artist singles. For example "Key of Heart / Dotch". "Key of Heart" was included on the album Made in Twenty (20), "Dotch" was not. Anyway I probably strayed from the point, but to prevent a edit war I want to known if it counts as a single. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, with a single, it's not the purpose, it's the timing. In other words, it doesn't matter what the single was supposedly released to support, it matters that the song came from an album. But you have this problem that the single was released nine months before the album, and it is a compilation album. So it sounds to me like the song didn't come from the album. As for that user's other point, the A side is what counts, when determining what album the single came from. They can put whatever they want on the B side. -Freekee (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is a A-side, it's just that only one song from the A-side appeared on the album. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think because the single was 9 months prior to the album and only includes one song on the album itself than it shouldn't be counted. Not every single has to have a album to be a part of, and like the user above says, this is a compilation album. All the tracks on this album were from singles. I want to be more compromising. I was saying it was in support of a tour because that is what the article for the single itself said, which you removed. It may count as a single but not necessarily a single from this album. A single on it's own which is common to happen as well.Danielquasar (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't your reasoning for it not being on the album though was it? Your reason was "it was to support her tour", and because a user says it was released "nine months before the album" that's part of your reason now? As I said above "Key of Heart / Dotch" is just like "Vivid", the only difference it's a double A-side. "Dotch" wasn't included on the album so "Key of Heart / Dotch"" isn't a single from Made in Twenty (20)? You based that on unsourced material which per Wikipedia standards can be removed if there isn't a source. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not adding his reason in to mine. I shouldn't of had to use the timing as a point. It's obvious that it was released 9 months prior. Released at the beginning of the tour at that time. If you want to get picky then explain Utada's COLORS. It was released on a best of THEN an album. So which should it be listed for? I just don't understand why you don't see what I am seeing. If you think it should be listed because one song appears on the album then list them all because they all appear on the album. Does this not make sense? Danielquasar (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing credit vs Artist who originally released a song

There is some discussion over when it is, or is not appropriate to mention the source of a cover, or remake of a song which resulted also into a small discussion that is more general to discussion of all song articles. This project might be interested. It is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Writing_credit_vs_original_artist_when_mentioning_a_song. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Bale Out

The article Bale Out is currently at peer review, comments appreciated at the subpage, Wikipedia:Peer review/Bale Out/archive1. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

The project page suggests that the naming should be after the artist. In the example given it suggests "Because (The Beatles song)". This can cause problems because a song can be recorded by numerous artists and the original artist may not always be the most notable version - If we were to change this to naming after the songwriter i.e. "Because (Lennon/McCartney) song" because this is factual and doesn't change irrespective of who records the song. It also helps to stop irregularities such as Fever (Madonna song). This would only apply where there are two or more songs with the same name. Does anybody agree with me? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've said a number of times that the naming scheme for songs sucks, mainly because most of the articles are about the singles and not the songs (there are nearly always two songs per single, fairly frequently more). I recommend using the same as films - if a disambiguation is needed then the year of the release should be used, if two singles with exactly the same title are produced in the same year then the artist would be a further disambiguation.--Alf ^melmac 11:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your thinking, but I can't think that listing the Madonna song under Fever (1956 song) would go down very well with Madonna fans, especially as it is no longer a 1956 song! Furthermore a song may be released in say, 1980, and not be notable, covered, say in 2007 by another artist and become notable by WP standards, do we list that song as "Song Title (1980 song)" or "Song Title (2007 song)"? That is why I suggested the songwriter(s), because there can be no dispute, or at least less disputes, and at least songwriters never write 2 different songs with the same title for obvious reasons.

While you have raised the matter, we have songs which are categorised under several years. Is there a view on this? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear I meant that the year of release would be disambiguation, and I'd really prefer it be "Song name (19~~ single)" than "Song name (19~~ song)" as virtually all articles are about the single not the song - they just usually use the title of the song on the A-side as the name of the single (though not always). . In your example that would be Fever (1993 single) although in that particular case song/single makes little difference as all tracks on most of the singles are all versions of the same song. My hint - what do we say pre-formatted in the box under the image - "Single by Madonna".--Alf ^melmac 11:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, if I am understanding you, you are suggesting that the song "Fever" should be listed separately everytime a notable version is released as a single, and if there is a notable version that is not released as a single, shouldn't that also have it's own page? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup that's pretty much it, some singles are notable enough for their own pages, and (imho) some artists should be viewed like the books of very notable authors - any work by those are considered notable by default of the author being so notable (I can find that in the guidance if needs be. But no the non-notable ones shouldn't have page on their own, but if there is a song which is notable but has not been released as a single, yes that should have a page about the song.--Alf ^melmac 12:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The only point of agreement between us is authors - which was my point in the first place - list the songs under the authors! With regard to singles, it seems strange that most companies finish up with a spam notice on their pages, yet singles are never tagged as such, and singles are only a product. As for separate entries for the same song, perish the thought, Wikipedia doesn't need another million stub-class entries of anything!. Listing as "Song name (19~~ single)" seems to be splitting hairs, after all it is still a "song." This is further convoluted by the fact that with downloads, there aren't really any "singles" any more (unless you count those "spammed to the radio stations")- or, conversely, every song is a single anyway i.e. available as a single download. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One question then - what is the current disambiguation for albums?

I agree we don't need "million stub-class entries of anything", but millions won't be notbale enough for inclusion. The not recognising of singles as opposed to songs isn't splitting hairs, it's mislabelling, plain and simple. I also think that it's rather snobbish (not you particuarly- generally how it's been done) to reduce singles to 'only a product'. A single is a commercial product, just as much as a film or book is, but they don't have to be all piled into one huge page where the reader is expected to wade through the trash (like putting that Maddona song on the song page - "perish the thought"? that is exactly what you have there!!) and I agree that should be ok, it's real snobbish to treat singles in such an inferior way. I can still walk into a record shop and buy a single so there really are single still, despite other formats outweighing their 'sales. "every song is a single anyway i.e. available as a single download" is plainly not quite right - a song has lyrics (we can't reproduce those lyrics until it's 50 years old though), it is written in a particular key, in a particular time signature, it will have a particular structure - if you can find me an article about a song which covers all those points then I might be persuaded. Singles on the other hand have a B-side, they (usually) have artwork and cover notes, there will things to say about the production, who the recording artist(s) were, the priduction crew, timing, venue etc. Songs != Singles and the more we ignore the more mixed up and difficult it will be to unravel. Remember that by virtue of the author any book by that author can be considered as notable, if the author is sufficiently notable. I have no problems having every single listed by every sufficiently notable artist as we are pretty much at that situation already, I'll repeat - it's snobbish to devalue their singles into ghastly massive pages where the reader, previously happily clicking the link from the last single arrives at a mucking fuddle and has to wade through every other version of the song... --Alf ^melmac 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to denigrate singles generally. Bit off-topic and one of the bees in my particular bonnet. Not relevant here, I'll leave it for another time. There are a few good articles about songs, here's one Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me). It has info boxes with good navigation, details regarding the song, insrumentation etc. You mentioned films, how about plays? You wouldn't consider listing plays by headline actor(s), would you? I'd like to see more people join in here. Just you and me shooting the wind isn't enough. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that article is nice, but it appears to have very little information about the song itself ("A full orchestral arrangement with strings and French horns adorning a bluesy rhythm track and guitar line provides the instrumentals" and then a viewpoint on what the lyrics mean - which is, if we think about it, about the recorded arrangement and not the song itself) but a lot about the single, it's production etc. - that is my main point - the article is about the single not the song. What key is it written in?, although we are given a little background as to what made the song come to be, where was the song written and if there is a specific reason, why? How many verses is it, is it verse chorus verse chorus (ABAB)? Does it have a bridge and if so what happens in it? etc? I'll agree the two of us chewing it over is insufficient... my apologies if my wording is sharp, it's one of my bonnetted bees as well.

I'm not sure what the current practise for disambiguating plays is, but I do note film productions have seperate pages from the play - List of plays made into feature films lists a number of them. Um, d'uh, I suddenly get the point - if we had two notable productions of a play, how would we disambiguate? I don't know, my guess would be for the name of the Production Company if the productions were made in the same year.--Alf ^melmac 13:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Worth a quick glance at West Side Story major new performances of the musical are listed separately within the article. FWIW the definition of song composition (i.e. the copyrightable bit), is words and music which actually means melody line, not the chords - which can, and are often changed depending on the performer, the key can change to suit the singer, and sometimes the instrumentation - flat keys for keyboard players and sharp keys for guitarists. Genre is a whole different ballgame. I may have a different slant on all this than you, If I look at a song I want to know it's antecedents, I don't want to look at Fever (Madonna song) and think that's it, The song has been round a few years and probably will be around a few more - might even be a hit for somebody else! Might be worth thinking about the 50s and 60s when there were often 2 versions of the same song in the UK charts at the same time! I do however agree that a lot more depth regarding song construction would be nice.

BTW, I have spent most of the weekend trying to get Category:Songs by songwriter into some kind of order, added about 50/60 new songwriters into the category. Regards --Richhoncho (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have a different slant on this, I would expect the readers of Madonna's discography would be pretty wierded out if they clicked the 'next single link' on Bad Girl (Madonna song) and found themselves at Fever (1956 song) with all of the details of the Fever (Madonna song) moved to that page, along with other versions. I would expect those people wanting information about the song itself to be pretty short-changed by the 1956 song article after having found the disambiguation page and then chosen from there. Some songs will have originally been written down as just a melody line without any harmony or chords, but that fact in itself would be of interest to me (as a perfoming musician), if they key is changed for a recording - whether the reason is for the keyboardists or guitarists to have easier fingering - I consider that information encyclopedic. Where the melody was written down with chords (in whatever format) and those harmonies/chords are changed, again, that is of interest. Converse to your interest, if I am browsing through the releases of a particular artist or band, I find previous incarnations of songs generally of little interest. The second of the two line introduction of that Madonna song says "It is a cover version of the song by Eddie Cooley and Otis Blackwell." so at least the writers of that page link you to the page containing the information you want (though I'd be surprised if you were looking for the song and you found yourself at the Madonna page without becoming aware of the antecedants).

I would be quite happy with the end result being a page for a song containing brief summaries and links to singles considered notable, both sides are then satisified, those who want info on the song read the song page, those who have a particular interest in a particular recording don't have to wade through other stuff to get to the info they want and their surfing is not interupted by our wants as writers to make it how we want (1 song = 1 page + all stuff goes there). Don't mention genre to me or might have 'one of those turns' - very subjective stuff <shudders> --Alf ^melmac 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out Make You Feel My Love, although it has none of the component parts we'd both like to see, it does have 4 single info boxes and 6 templates. Also there is no reason why the navigation can't take you to the say, the Adele version direct. With 4 different article, each would would to be lsited to Category:Songs written by Bob Dylan. Looks like we agree on genre <somebody just trampled all over my bonnet, too LOL> --Richhoncho (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly tempted to say that's about as much space as those recordings deserve :p but seriously, is that really all the information available for those recordings, that's pretty thin - the page doesn't clutter for that reason, imagine the same with the amount of info that the Madonna 'song' has four times over :s We don't have the same approach to films, radio and television adaptation of notable stories (Dracula (disambiguation) and The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation) for example), notable radio series that find their way into other media (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (disambiguation) for example), the root here is that all of those (ok most of those in Dracula's case) are the same story - the same set of words - in different media, when it comes to notable songs though, overall we have a different standard - we are preferring to have them all on one page.--Alf ^melmac 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, in the Dracula instance they are re-written with a different screenwriter, the original novel being no more than a stepping stone, whereas we agree that all the different versions of the song have the same songwriter(s). The Hitchhikers are different formats although I don't want to open the 7", 12" EP, vinyl, CD and download formats as a possibility of yet more articles. If you take away the different mixes and releases of the Madonna version of Fever (which I really do think is worthless!) there's really not much difference between the 2 articles. Then I note the The McCoys are also entitled to a Fever article under your methods. BTW There is a reason that these things should be discussed in WP independently of other articles, one of us could take the highest common denominator and the other the lowest common denominator and we really would get nowhere! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that we have double standards in dealing with notable recording of songs as opposed to other media in like situations. There are a lot of films telling the same story of Stoker's - each film gets a page no matter whether it's notable or not as it's a film, it's the snobbishness about singles and forcing them into one song pigeon-hole. TLOTR likewise, exactly the same story, some media allows a page because it's in that media - that's a double standard. There is a heap of more information about the recording in Madonna's song article than in the 1956 song, irrespective of the listifications, but I'm not wanting to see that article merged as I consider the ethic about sufficiently notable authors being allowed any article about any of their books by default to be transferrable to musical artists and their output. Are the McCoys sufficiently notable for that consideration - I notice that none of the singles or albums have an article about them, so my initial guess would be that no, they are not in a similar grouping of sufficiently notables, nor would any of their singles independently have sufficent notability for an article. Again my point is, that there are sufficiently notable mutliple versions of songs to allow them pages to themselves, particularly if by a demonstrably notable enough artist to note all their output. Saying that just because the format is a single and therefore is a song, which in turn all belong on the same page, is a) patently false and b) using a double standard.--Alf ^melmac 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according, ahem, Wikipedia, The McCoys peaked at #7 in the Billboard charts with Fever, so according to present notability standards that is notable. Here's a partial list of people who have covered Fever, I say partial because BMI/ASCAP lists are notoriously suspect. BMI entry for Fever. If I had the devil in me today, I'd create a category:Artists who have covered Fever. LOL. If you discount "celebrity" I'd say the song is more important than the performers, it's already been around for 3 generations and, I suspect most of versions have been, or will be, consigned to the nostalgia bin of the old peoples' home. BTW Are there any song or single articles that you could point me to that you feel are of a good standard? Added Here's a great reason not to add different versions, how about 2 or more articles on Let It Be Me and all the cover versions being added as it is in this article. LOL --Richhoncho (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, number 7 eh <looks impressed as he'd never heard of it> then I see no reason for it not to have a page. If I had the devil in me I'd template the infobox for every single one of those artists's singles onto that one page just to prove the point, but that would be, erm, making a point :p I'd agree though most of those versions would be consigned to the nostalgia bin but if reliable sourced info arrives about each and everyone of those singles, what's to stop an editor making that page impossible to load and read, erm, more information laden. In my opinion Dixie (song) is actually about the song (hooray) and I consider that to be good. Baby Boy (song) is pretty good, it tells me about the key the song is written in, the time signature and even the tempo - to boot it throws in the genre <shudders> and the reasons behind it's writing, as does Cool (song) (we obviously have a very comptetent Gwen Stefani fan as we have Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) as a featured article also, and that, again, does include info on the key, time signature etc.) but my all time favourite has to be Yesterday (song) - very good writing up of the music section, with excellent write-up of the motivation and writing process.

Eeep - did you have to - I was about to have tea, that put me right of it :p Yes Let It Be Me is the sort of nightmare I fear.--Alf ^melmac 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very good articles, if that was the standard I'd be happy to go along with what others decided (even though I was hard pressed not to add a fact tag to "The song has been praised by both critics and music industry personnel. "Baby Boy"...."). The reality is that very few song, single or album articles will ever reach anything like those standards, will never say more than "this existed" and in plenty of cases there is nowhere to find the information, all people associated with the song having long gone. Then adding the stuff we would both like to see very quickly becomes original research. I do see where you are coming from, can even see some (but not enough!) justification for your stand, a song is a song, with writers, performers, arrangers, producers, record labels, publishers, just because it's slapped on a piece of plastic and hauled round the radio stations doesn't in itself make the song more important. I think we've discussed this! Regards. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You identified an issue with the disambiguation of the articles within the scope of this project, I fed back that I had identified the same problem, but from a different angle and see a different root as the problem and therefore it needs a different solution: That is no reason to now say that that's the end of the discussion, the issues remain.

I vaguely resent your final summing up but I won't get worked up about it as the over generalisation is clearly unwaranted, at no point did I suggest a free-for-all on this issue for any and all singles, I thought I was rather clear about notability whether inherited or per the current music guidelines. I'm confused by your rationale that changing the disambiguation to singles when about singles and songs when about songs would lead to original research, as you say, those articles without that information will likely stay smaller than the no-brainers for being superb articles like "Yesterday".--Alf ^melmac 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no offence was meant, we had a very useful discussion, but ultimately it led nowhere because there was no hope of concensus with only 2 people involved at the time. I don't want, and never wanted, the disambiguation to be "singles" (That doesn't preclude categorization as singles) What I started with was that "Because" should be distinquished by the writer, not the performer, so it should be "Because (Lennon/McCartney song). Then we got side-tracked into the number of versions. There are plenty of notable songs which have never been released as singles. In fact, the more I think about it, the tag "song (single)" really is meaningless. Again, it was a good talk, you made me think and that's always a good thing! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comfort break - song disambiguation

Sorry to interrupt your little discussion, here, but I thought I'd toss in a couple of cents... First of all, I like the current system of one article per song, multiple sections and infoboxes included. With that in mind, I like Rich's suggestion to change primary DAB term to composer. If a lot of people show up and declare they agree with Alf, and would like to divide all the single articles, I still suggest that this form of disambiguation be considered for appropriate articles. In other words, song articles that cover more than one version. -Freekee (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for joining in the discussion. I never suggested dismantling those listified articles, did I? No. Please don't put way and beyond what I say. Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 05:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Notability guideline says: [i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. On top of that, the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline specifies further instances of notability within the field. making the naming scheme force all songs irrespective of their individual merits is contrary to both those guidelines, as well as not reflecting what editors have been doing (creating stand alone articles which meet those criteria).--Alf ^melmac 05:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but I know there are people who would prefer to break up the articles, or at least would like to write new ones this way. -Freekee (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My uninformed two cents: every choice kinda sucks. With this profound insight out of the way, I think the really stupid mistake was to start writing articles about singles in the first place. As pointed out above, singles are more akin to a product than to a work of art. You'll find plenty of material discussing albums and songs but actual meaningful commentary about a single is very rare. The B-side is most of the time, well, a B-side and has no real relevance. Also I find no value in having 5 different articles about various covers of a song: in fact it's more interesting to have a single article where one can actually compare the versions. The (19xx song) is not really that interesting and I think the more common (Band whatever song) is more intuitive than (Author whoever song) since many well-known songs have been written and composed by people who've remained in the shadows. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would possibly agree that we should have had better criteria for including singles/song in the encylopedia earlier on, but we do have a reasonable number of articles which are informative enough for the readers, so I couldn't agree that we made a mistake allowing them at all. Re 'actual meaningful commentary about a single being very rare' - whether meaningful or not (I'm not sure an agreement on what constitutes that is possible), per se, I find more information about singles being available that about songs, but where there is information about songs, frequently there is more info about that than the singles.--Alf ^melmac 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Going back to Fever again, or any other similarly covered song, it is my contention that the song is notable in its own right, the fact it has been recorded by so many people in so many styles is testament to that. We've established it's charted with performances with at least 3 performers. To divorce any article on the song demotes that history, removes "encyclopedia" from the article and even negates the true importance of why somebody should record a cover version. I also dislike "Fever (1956) song" because it date stamps something which has proven to be timeless. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Because (song) for the first time, I am really surprised at the article, it has no sources and the other has to take further disambiguation, I think in this instance the problem should be solved by making Because (The Beatles song) the (song) article - it is far more likely that a reader typing in "Because (song)" will want the Beatles than Guy d'Hardelot and Edward Teschemacher - I suggest it gets moved to Because (d'Hardelot/Teschemacher song) and the relevant associated housework be done.--Alf ^melmac 23:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD debate of interest

People involved in the project might want to chime in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_13#Category:Songs_with_music_by_Helmy_Kresa. Should we keep categories of the form songs by JohnDoe when there is no article about John Doe? I suppose people involved with the project have the best perspective to evaluate this sort of question. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I nominated these categories, and for evenness I also nominated a further 5 at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_10#Category:Songs_written_by_Dave_Bennett. No category listed has more than one entry and none have a relevant article. Depending on how these go, I have a few more nominations, but I will not be nominating any with 2 or more songs in the category irrespective of whether there is an article or not. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lalala Shiawase no Uta

Notable? If not, could someone sent to speedy? I would do it myself, but I'm not familiar with the criteria for songs.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. According to the article, it peaked at number five on a chart, but isn't specified. If that can't be verified, a redirect or prod is appropriate. — Σxplicit 06:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"God Bless the Child" consistently mistitled

It's not just on Wikipedia, and so it's easy to see how the widespread error would get replicated there. The correct title of the song (which you can verify by going out and buying a copy of the sheet music) is: "God Bless' the Child". There doesn't appear to be any way a user can correct this mistake, so I'm posting about it here in hopes someone with high enough permissions will do so.

Why is this important (after all, it's just an apostophe!)? It's important because the apostrophe complete changes the meaning by 180°. Many, perhaps most, people, hearing the title and being unaware of its correct punctuation, assume the song is some kind of invocation of divine blessing -- even though in this context the lyrics actually make no sense at all.

With the apostrophe, the true meaning of the song snaps into focus. The apostrophe implies a following -es, making the title actually: "God Blesses the Child that's got his own". This is an expression akin to, "With your new diploma and $4, you can get a cup of coffee at Starbucks!"

Or, "If you want a blessing from god, it's best to have one in hand already. Because, when it comes to that god-stuff, it's all just pretend." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggod2 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Assesement

Hi. I was wondering how can I obtain assesement for the articles I created? e.g. De Mí Enamórate and Tutta la vita.

Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Contentious Categories for Merger nomination - Johnny Mercer

Basically, there's 3 categories for Johnny Mercer, Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer, category:Songs by Johnny Mercer and Category:Songs with music by Johnny Mercer. I've proposed a merger under Songs written by... I feel that more expertise should be added and see if a real concensus can be reached at CfR discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If You're Not the One

Could I please have some input on improving the If You're Not the One article, which I am currently trying to turn into a Good Article but eventually hope it will be featured. I have been following the structure of a currently featured song article, "Cool" by Gwen Stefani but need help on the writing process and other background information. Can people post a message on my talk page. Thanks. 03md 08:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are they Christian

How are the members of Billy Talent Christians when the name of their live CD/DVD is 666? Just wondering. (70.30.100.205 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Sound bite assistance

I've rewritten What'd I Say (song) and nominated it for GA. I think it might have a shot for FA. I'm interested in including two bites from the song: the first of first 30 seconds of the electric piano riffs and the transition into the regular piano. The second after the false ending with the call and response where the calls are particularly provocative. I've never loaded any sounds to Wikipedia before. If someone wants to roll their eyes and just do it that would be neat. If someone wants to instruct me how to record it to fade out after 30 seconds and then upload it, that would be swell too. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Number-one albums vs. number-one songs categories

Up for CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 12#Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums is a category I created (technically, recreated) for number-one albums on the Billboard 200 chart. Number-one albums categories had been deleted by previous consensus in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 15#Number-one album categories). And yet, there are dozens of "number-one songs" categories. I think there should be similar categorization of both number-one songs and number-one albums, regardless of number, or the songs categories should be removed for the same reason as the albums categories. I'm seeking input from knowledgeable contributors at the WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Songs organizations. Thank you for your time. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under its scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Llorando se fue

Hello..... Unfortunately I cannot correct the following sentence on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambada_(Kaoma_song.

"The lyrics of "Lambada", which is also the name of a Brazilian music style, was an unauthorized translation of the song "Chorando se foi", an acoustic song recorded by the Bolivian group Los K’jarkas.[citation needed]"

It has to be: "The lyrics of "Lambada", which is also the name of a Brazilian music style, was an unauthorized translation of the song "LLorando se fue", an acoustic song recorded by the Bolivian group Los K’jarkas.[citation needed]".

The original song is in Spanish, and it is called "Llorando se fue", not Portuguese "Chorando se foi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red angel1981 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Incense and Peppermints article

In the "Incense and Peppermints" article, the band name Strawberry Alarm Clock needs to be hot-linked to the article on that band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.112.115 (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done, though this would have best been placed on that article's talk page. Or you could have been bold and linked it yourself. — Σxplicit 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Homeless Heart

I need an experienced music reviewer to look into Homeless Heart and see how much the article should stand alone by itself. It was heavily publicised and accepted through out Canadian airways and there is an external link saying itslef a number 2 hit. I propose no redirection of the article to Carlsson page or any of the other two songwriters. I ask for no speedy deletion or reverting but someone to review and improve the article if possible. thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So Close (McCurdy

Someone please help expand the article So Close (Jennette McCurdy) before re-adding the notability tag.Jeneral28 (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Tommy the Cat

Hi all. I've attempted to clean up and fix the article for Primus' "Tommy the Cat" -- Could someone take a look-see and offer some input. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_the_Cat BubbaStrangelove (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So Far Away (Carole King)

Someone please help improve it and DO NOT tag for deletionJeneral28 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Songfacts.com

I contest this site is not factual but based on inputs of members. They have made mistakes such as Toto's song Rosanna.Jeneral28 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Songs available in Music Games

Hi, what is your stance on adding if a song was used in a popular music game like Guitar Hero or Sing Star? I personally like this information, as I try songs I like for the music games I play.

See discussion of Falling Down (Oasis song) why I ask now. :-) --Marc van Woerkom (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR National Anthem of Russia

I have nominated National Anthem of Russia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. OboeCrack (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Official Singles

When creating pages for official singles after they havent charted, why do they get deleted?. I think that if the song was official released and has a music video,track listing it should be able to stay and not be deleted. Especially if the song is a "digital only" single. If thats not the case then why isn't "Sanctuary" by "Gabriella Cilmi" deleted yet when it hasn't charted?. See my thoughts are that if a song hasn't charted but is officially released, it should be allowwed to have an article, because it's not just a track off the album, it's a single. User:Billy4kate,(User talk:Billy4kate)

Also, if a single can be deleted for not charting why can't an album?.

Because most songs are not notable. Anything worth noting about them can easily be added into the album or artist article. Song articles should not be created until they do chart or are otherwise notable. Just being released as a single is not notable. However, song articles that are deemed not notable should not be deleted but redirected to the album or artist article. Non-charting albums may be redirected to the artist page, especially if the album article is nothing more than a track listing. However, if the album is from a notable artist, having a record of it in a separate article could be deemed appropriate depending on the length of the artist article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a recording on Utube "I'm confessin that I love you"

Recorded by Chester Gaylord (The whispering serenader)in 1929, is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchwood (talk • contribs) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question on categorization

Using Sunday Morning as an example, what's the policy when it comes to adding a category such as this "Matthew Sweet songs" cat? I would understand the article having it if the cover version was notable (released as a single perhaps), but it's just one apparently non-notable cover among many by artists the article isn't tagged with. It's inconsistent and seems a little biased to me by unduly highlighting one artist in particular w/o any real reason.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Matthew Sweet version is not blue linked into the article, so I would say, "non-notable" in this instance. My objection is to the term "Matthew Sweet songs" (and all the the cats named similarly) which is supposed to mean "Recorded by Matthew Sweet" - whoever else recorded this song, it is really a "Velvet Underground" song. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the same thing. There is a sort of false ownership implied with such categories. I think how it's handled in Working Class Hero is the standard we should stick to: it's categorized as a John Lennon song, but also includes the Green Day category because their version was released and charted as a single (and would thus warrant its own article if it wasn't a cover), while the numerous non-notable covers of the song are duly mentioned but not included in categories.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 06:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the covering artist's version is notable enough to have its own section in the song article, then go ahead and categorize it. -Freekee (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on these categories? Category:Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine songs and Category:Alvin and the Chipmunks songs. Talk about overkill on the categorization of non-notable covers. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In some instances an unverified sentence has been added, in others there is no reference to the artists that are categorized. Convert to a list if anybody thinks there is any encyclopaedic value to these and delete the categories. OTOH, we could have fun categorizing, say "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as a "lounge song" and highlight the whole ridiculousness of categorizing by genre! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is more important?

The original singer of the song, that just recorded it for her album or the artist that released the song as an actually single? The page in question is Note to God. User:Dynablaster believes that Charice's cover should have it's own section under "Charice cover". I disagree because as I explained on his talk Charice's version should have more prominence because it was released as a single and charted unlike JoJo's version, which was just recorded for her album. I also told him the only time the artists should be listed in chronological order when the song is released by one artist and covered by others. This is my version and this is his. Some help on this would be great. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A case example is I Will Be. Same situation. This song was originally recorded by Avril Lavigne but never released as a single, only to be found on some Limited Editions of her album (Japan, etc). The lead section commenced with Leona's version before Avrils because, it was argued, only the former singer released the song as a single. But other editors said 'No, once notability has been established, the history of a song should be told as fully as possible, which means describing affairs in temporal order.' I am happy to give way if this is wrong. Dynablaster (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The simple solution to this kind of debate is to list in date order. After all, the article is about the song, not the performer and for any other article in WP the standard is in date order with the pertinent important details put at the start. Otherwise we open a door for opinions and original research, which as we know, is not WP's way.

So I would go for an intro along the lines of <song> is a song written by <songwriter> and recorded by <notable artist> and <2nd notable artist> (year and genre could be added). I would expect to see some text and a heading and sub-headings for both the notable artists but not for any other non-notable recordings - which could be in a further heading "Other artists who have recorded the song"

This seems to meet the standard set by WP in other projects and I can't see any reason why songs should be treated any differently from the main bulk of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, there are many released singles with articles here in wikipedia such as beyonce's if i were a boy and leona lewis's bleeding love which were recorded by an artist but never released as a single. And yet the first ones who recorded it were not mentioned to have had recorded the song in the introductory section. Please correct all of them so as to avoid such confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phytogenica (talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

They are in date order - of being released. I have no intention of getting into edit wars over this or any other matter --Richhoncho (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't Disturb This Groove

I took a stab at improving the Don't Disturb This Groove song article. While it still has a ways to go, it's a start. Any comments/suggestions/assistance welcome.Gongshow (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson articles for GA/FA

I think we should make a real effort to get all of the article related to Michael Jackson to at least GA, and preferably to FA, in the near future. I will make a start on one of the article. Post a comment here or on the WP:WikiProject Michael Jackson page if you are willing to help. Look through the current articles and take as many as possible to Peer Review in their current state. We will then have some concrete issues to address. Thanks. 03md 07:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be very helpful to contact User:Realist2 about this - he has already done a lot of very good work on MJ articles. - eo (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rules for a cover version getting a separate article

In an ongoing dispute affecting multiple articles, there is a merge discussion for the Red Hot Chili Peppers cover of the Stevie Wonder song "Higher Ground". Similar disputes have been occurring in other articles (at least one citing "Higher Ground" as a precedent), with no satisfying WP:Consensus reached. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of merge/separate song articles is an ongoing debate. Isn't it time we reached a consensus that be adopted by the the project and affect all song articles generally? Does anybody agree with me the debate(s) should be brought here with a view to getting a consensus? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is a topic that really needs a consensus. I think a lot of people will have something to say about it. - eo (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Every time I come across an article for a cover song, I see this debate. SKS (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be fit and proper to copy and paste the debate(s) here or should a separate page be created? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How about wikilinking relevant discussions here for a start? / edg ☺ ☭ 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling it may turn into a decent-sized length so let's start something here: WP:COVERDISCUSS - eo (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Dirrty" GAR notification

Dirrty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

High Roller Single

is there any evidence that this is actually a high roller single album? Because allmusic.com lists it as a US based release of the busy child single (as opposed to the UK release)?

24.18.43.131 (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting Over single by the crystal method

it seems that this single is listed as having the exact same tracks as the born too slow single. after checking other websites it seems that the born too slow name for this single is much more common. the starting over single also doesn't have cover art. does this single even exist?

24.18.43.131 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Diana

Ok I was reading the article for Dirty Diana and I read this: "Michael finishes his by ripping his shirt, ad-libbing, grabbing his crotch." I really don't think "grabbing his crotch" is really appropiate to describe that dance move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punksuga (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel there is a better way to describe it, please go ahead and improve the article. Especially if you have a reliable source to back up your statement. – IbLeo (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

problem with Elliot Minor page

I noticed everything was moved to the side and I don't know how to fix it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Minor_%28album%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertysan (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. — Σxplicit 18:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When did Bing Crosby record Sweet Leilani?

The article in Wikipedia says 1935. As far as I can discover, that's 2 years before the Film Wakiki Wedding and 2 years before the record (on Decca) hit the Billboard charts. Where does the 1935 date come from? David32768 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD help requested

This AFD has been listed and then re-listed twice and not one person has contributed. Therefore, I doubt I'm not breaking WP:CANVAS by posting the link here. (The AFD is for a few Girls Aloud Music DVDs) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style (DVD). DJ 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I need help in the article La posada de los muertos --El estremeñu (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Second infobox

An IP added a second infobox for an artist who released twice his singles (see [2] and [3]). Despite my reverts, the IP re-added the infobox in these articles, saying "it's relevant" [4]. Is this second infobox really useful, as 1/ it provides almost the same content (same composers, same producers, same cover art) ; 2/ the template {{Extra chronology 2}} has been created in this goal ? PS: Sorry for my bad English ! Europe22 (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

HELP ME, PLEASE

Review the articles Satania, La posada de los muertos, and Molinos de viento, please, I believe those articles have unnecesaries templates. Please make it. --El estremeñu (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Cash and songs

I know a lot of Cash songs I could contribute to the Johnny Cash song page, but there is no link to click on so I can add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.111.111 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Credits

I am sorry to bother you, but I don't have the photo booklet for Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus and I need to find out where the personnel for "I Miss You". How or where could I find this? --Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Split singles

What's the proper way to handle split singles. For example we have separate articles on Atmosphere/She's Lost Control and Atmosphere (Joy Division song). Should these be merged or not? Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a debate on this very issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions. Hopefully a guideline will emerge. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Release history tables

I was just wondering if there's any guideline on using a table for release dates of a single. I'd like to know if airplay should be included in the table, as personally I don't think so because you can't purchase a single in airplay format. Please help. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Key signature" section on project page

The "Key signature" section on the project page seems a bit problematic to me.

• It's a single sentence only: "Songs should contain musical features such as chorus or verse key signature, recording techniques used, musical techniques, etc."
• It's titled "Key signature" but as can be seen above, it's about recording techniques, musical techniques, etc. Key signature does not capture the content accurately
• Most importantly, I think the sentence is unintentionally misleading. It strongly suggests that a paragraph of analysis of the song in terms of music theory is desirable. In my experience, most such paragraphs are original research and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia.

Any objections to merging it into another section of the project page or just getting rid of it altogether?

SlubGlub (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought the heading was wrong and should be developed more. Perhaps "musical composition" and include instrumentation, chord structure (which is not copyrightable), a good look at some of the featured song articles will give a few more ideas. Let's be honest, if there's nothing to write about the music of the song there isn't an article in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The material must be cited to a reliable source. Otherwise, the material is original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Key signature, chord structure, instrumentation, and compositional techniques are typically inessential and non-notable pieces of information for a Wikipedia article about a recent (say, last 20 years) pop song. Most songs are notable due to their popularity and cultural impact. Now, of course, there are lots of exceptions to this generality. "I Got Rhythm" certainly has a chord structure that had huge implications for subsequent music. But even that fact should be cited to a reliable source.

For articles about recent (again, last 20 years or so) songs, most inclusions of information like key signature and chord structure are original research and non-notable. The information should not be included. SlubGlub (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the featured articles about songs disagree with you, although I think we are all agreed about citeable sources. Are you suggesting that the articles are ONLY about the pieces of plastic they come on? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about music video links

Recently, I have been adding official music video links to song single articles inside the single article's infobox. I was wondering is doing this ok? Or does this violate some policy or rule?  Burningview  ✉ 14:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to official music videos offered legally by sites sanctioned by the copyright holders may be legitimate content for the External links section of an article. As a general rule, any other video link for a song should not be included. SlubGlub (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a rebuttal to RUBY

Seems like I remember a followup to RUBY that clears up misconceptions. She was not going "out on the town", but merely securing employment. She truley loved her hubby, but could not stay home 24/7????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.152 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Auto assessments

Would there be any objection to adding automatic assessments to this banner? This would allow the {{Stubclass}} template to be removed from pages in Category:Automatically assessed song articles (example at Talk:Always (song)) and be replaced with a message in the banner, i.e.

Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Japaneese song Kagome Kagome is similer.

couldn't Ring around the Roses be similar to the Japanese game Kagome Kagome there is a link about this game even here on Wikipedia that I'll post below where children sing in a circle. This is my first time ever leaving something on this site and i just wondered in. I hope this conclusion can be used by people more professional them myself, as I haven't seen any link between these here and thought this might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kagome_Kagome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o%27_Roses

99.155.147.95 (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Flying_Yoda99.155.147.95 (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A Swingin' Safari - Bert Kaempfert

Under Trivia, it states that this song has the same structure as "The Lion Sleeps Tonight". This is not true. The two songs have the following structures:

The Lion Sleeps Tonight (Wimoweh)
I    IV    I    V
I    IV    I    V

A Swingin' Safari
I      IV      I     V
I      IV      I  V  I

NigelMackay (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Beatles songwriting credits

Even though all Beatles songs written by either John Lennon or Paul McCartney are attributed to both artists by their publishing company, there are several instances were only one of them wrote actually wrote a given song, despite the official credits. A few editors on Beatles song articles are contesting that all songs written by Lennon and McCartney should be attributed to "Lennon/McCartney" in the infobox, even if the article prose verifies only one was involved, their primary argument being it's long-standing consensus on Beatles pages (no actual proof of consensus has been provided; the credits seems to be listed as such mainly due to inertia). Additonally, shouldn't the writers' field in the infobox link to John Lennon and Paul McCartney, not Lennon/McCartney? Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to see the info box kept simple. "Lennon/McCartney" is the most common form of the original and long held publishing credit. The article text should spell out both names. Other specific attributions (ie who actually wrote the song) can be explained in the article. - Steve3849 ^talk 08:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason that there is one link to Lennon/McCartney in the infobox is because there is an article specifically about the songwriting partnership under that very title. As there was a clearly defined songwriting partnership as agreed by Lennon and McCartney about songwriting credits I don't think it's up to WP to unravel it. Your comments would apply equally to every songwriting partnership! If you still feel strongly about this, please ensure you take it to the Beatles project for their opinions. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"As there was a clearly defined songwriting partnership as agreed by Lennon and McCartney about songwriting credits I don't think it's up to WP to unravel it". This is flawed on two counts. First of all, Lennon and McCartney have clarifed in various interviews who wrote what and who didn't write what (and there have been various instances where both men wanted to change the songwriting credits to properly reflect this). Secondly, it is the purpose of Wikipedia to convey verified knowledge. There's no denying that Paul McCartney wrote "Yesterday" by himself; not reflecting this in all parts of the article is contradictory, confusing for unfamiliar readers, and in disregard of verifiable sources. It's turning a blind eye to what sources say, and that flies in the face Wikipedia policy. As I've mentioned elsewhere, film infoboxes have no problem indicating writer contributions, even if the authors were not officially credited. Hell, Bob Kane is the only credited creator of Batman, but it's well-established that Bill Finger was co-creator, even though the creator byline never says that for legal reasons. And the Batman infobox reflects that. Publishing credits never supercede verifiable fact. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So third party verification doesn't apply to songwriters? Also you shouldn't be getting into edit wars over this. As User:John Cardinal stated on Hey Jude, neither McCartney nor Lennon have claimed sole authorship. Until you can get consensus (if you can get consensus) do not change the credits on the articles. Nor, may I remind you, you can't use other articles to substantiate your views. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney does in fact claim sole authorship of "Hey Jude". Check page 297 of The Beatles Anthology. He says right there he wrote it by himself. I know because I have it on my bookshelf. This is why you can't just rely on who the liner notes credit. This is basic fact-checking here. I don't understand the statement "So third party verification doesn't apply to songwriters?" because I'm arguing it does. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Then get concensus. Perhaps you'd like a look at [[5]] for a starter. Certainly edit wars are not the answer. I have put a note of this discussion on John Cardinal's talkpage. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time the song was registered, McCartney and Lennon agreed to a joint credit. That's never been formally changed. Informally (i.e., in interviews), McCartney claimed he wrote it. He did not comment about whether Lennon helped a little, or a lot, or none at all, though there are recordings of the two working on the song and Lennon makes the sort of comments a partner would make. The formal, legal credit has not changed, and that means something as there is precedent for it: "Give Peace a Chance" was originally credited to the pair but was subsequently changed to Lennon alone. That indicates that the credit could be changed, presumably if there was sufficient evidence. In general, I think infoboxes should show the official/legal/formal (and thus easily-verified) credits and leave the less formal (and less easily verified) matter of who wrote what (or how much) to the prose of the article. The prose is the right place to present and describe the other evidence. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing song credit can be complicated for a number of reasons; it's not as straightforward as "They never changed the credit so that means they must have both wrote it". Publishing credits are not some infallible process. I point to other areas of Wikipedia. Often the Screenwriter's Guild of America will not credit people involved in writing a film if they are not Guild members. Often writers will remove their names from the credits if they are unsatisfied with the end product; they still wrote the damn things, nonetheless. Going back to the Batman example, Bob Kane worked out a contract with DC Comics that left him as the only credited contributor to Batman comics until the mid-1960s (not only denying Bill Finger of public credit, but other writers and Kane's slew of ghost artists). Are there any details as to why the credit for "Give Peace a Chance" was changed? Because otherwise you're making assumptions about these legal matters that require verification.

And as I mentioned above, there are sources that indicate certain songs were written by John alone or Paul alone, or featured both working side-by-side. The Beatles' songwriting history is well-documented, and in many instances it's quite possible to attribute proper authorship, regardless of the generic byline. In fact, most Beatles articles do this--except for in the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You can list all the exceptions you want, but in the great majority of cases, a formal credit is accurate, and supported by reliable evidence.

With regard to L/M songs, authorship is not always clear. Neither commented on all of their songs. Lennon didn't comment on as many songs as McCartney. Both make contradictory statements. In many cases, you can find commentary where one says a song is "mine", but later says that the other helped.

For "Hey Jude", I've read a lot of sources and McCartney never claimed sole authorship: he never said that Lennon didn't help and shouldn't be credited. Lennon did make such a claim for "Give Peace a Chance", and the official credit was subsequently changed. I do not know what evidence his estate produced in order to change the credit but (A) there is evidence it changed (see BMI source you keep deleting from the song article) and (B) there are multiple interviews where Lennon said in no uncertain terms that McCartney did not participate (Rolling Stone 1970, Playboy 1980). — John Cardinal (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Refer to the page number I mentioned before for details on the authorship of "Hey Jude". We don't rely on credits for facts on wikipedia; we rely on reliable sources that can illuminate these credits. As I've pointed out before with examples from other media (seriously, read up on the creation of Batman), authorship credits can be incorrect without being fixed. Official credits aren't infaillable. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Batman case but it doesn't matter; if it is the same situation as "Hey Jude", the infobox ought to show the official credits. That doesn't mean that official credits are always infallible, however, the credits are a legal statement that is recorded at the time the song is registered and thus they are reliable sources. Unless there is very, very strong counter evidence they should be accepted as correct. Such evidence is not present in this case. As I wrote above, I've read a mountain of Beatle-related material and I've never read anything where McCartney said Lennon should be removed from the official credit for "Hey Jude" (or any other Beatle song), nor have I read anything where he states explicitly that Lennon didn't help. McCartney reversed the order of the credits for some songs but later gave up on that and said something along the lines of "That's [the sequence] something I don't have a problem with anymore." Comments from interviews deserve a place in the article but they don't have the same weight as the official credits. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see infobox proposal below. PL290 (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment for Justified and Ancient

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Justified and Ancient/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Singles VS EPs

I've started a discussion on a Singles VS EP's case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Singles VS EPs. Any feedback would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover versions

Is there a WP policy on the cover version sections, in some articles? There are some songs that have exceedingly large lists on this. PaulHammond2 (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion @ WP:COVERDISCUSS. SKS (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox proposal for record labels

Now that more inactive, dormant and defunct record labels have infoboxes. There should be a new field to be used only for record labels not currently active titled "Fate." For example, the fate for ABC Records was it was sold and absorbed into MCA Records. The fate for MCA Records would be absorbed into Geffen Records. Also look at the new inserted infoboxes for the former EMI labels His Master's Voice and Columbia Graphophone Company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support as defunct corporations also have a "Fate" field. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but not a great fan of the word "fate." --Richhoncho (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there another word we could use? The article for the now defunct RCA Corporation which owned the still active RCA Records uses the defunct company infobox that utilizes the word "fate" regarding what happened to the company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Just a thought, but instead of "fate", maybe: "became", "presently", "incorporated to", "merged with"... I don't know, but just something besides "fate". "We can work it out..." Doc9871 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In corporate terms the word is "status" (assuming it is recognised world wide etc etc) does that work in this context? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. "Fate" is overly conclusive-sounding; "status" sounds a bit "wishy-washy" next to it. Not that its at all incorrect, but... I think something in-between, and yet... I'm not sure. Oh, how I wish I had washed what I'd wished to have washed! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Being bold I have removed the word "Fate" from ABC Records. If anybody thinks I should be reverted please revert. If the status is currently trading then we can put currently trading and so on, maybe what is really needed is Years Active i.e. 1999 - current and Status, trading, defunct etc. My head hurts. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Can't a better word than "fate" be used? A disestablishment or merger date would be more useful. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation: Not by performer, please!

Let's get away from this nomenclature where songs are disambiguated by performer. I have been advocating for some time that something like publication year is better. If a song has been performed by 50 different artists, singling out one is unjust to all the others. In the case of the songs I'm interested in, most were extensively covered, and the original version may not have been the most popular version, or the song may have been revived several times over. -- BRG (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I prefer either the songwriter(s) or the best known performer of the songs in question. If there is more than one popular performer of the same song, then either the bigger hit version or the originator of the song should be mentioned. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. When I first saw this suggested I didn't like it either, but the more I thought about it I realised it is probably the best suggestion of many very weak suggestions. For example there is both Fever (1956 song) and Fever (Madonna song). I just can't see how it can be described as a Madonna song, it has too long and varied career to be given a nomenclenture of one artist. There is the additional problem of naming after the artist who made it famous, I would want Little Willie John, plenty would want Peggy Lee, and, of course, the Madonna fans.... What a lovely chance for some really bitter edit wars! Ideally I would like it named after the songwriters (which alleviates any chance of two or more titles the same), but quite frankly Fever (Eddie Cooley and John Davenport song) does not really cut the mustard especially in view of the long running <yawn> proposal about songwriting credits above and that John Davenport is a psuedonym for Otis Blackwell. That for me leaves one solution, naming after the year of publication, which is already common in Wikipedia for older songs, and I don't see it does any harm to newer songs. The one thing I do stress, that any solution must encompass ALL songs.--Richhoncho (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer titling the one article "Fever (Little Willie John song)" Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And to me the song is mainly associated with Peggy Lee. And even by your criterion, she is the best-known performer; I've never even heard Little Willuie John's version, though I'm certainly aware of its existence. -- BRG (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Little Willie John was the originator of "Fever (1956 song)". Peggy Lee did the 'white cover version' of the song. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Cooley and Blackwell were the "originators" of the song, LWJ had the original hit. Lord knows how many times I have removed "originally" from "...originally written by ..." --Richhoncho (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

<Warning, irony alert> In which case I think I'll change from Little Willie John to Madonna. That version and that singer are currently the most famous.... Now we can argue for the rest of the millenia what the title should be! Or we could try and reach a solution that doesn't involve long edit wars over who is more famous! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Richhoncho, The Madonna Fever song article is a different article about the same song that Little Willy John and Peggy Lee Fever sang. the 1956 and Madonna Fever song articles should be merged. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

At least in that the 3 of us agree entirely. However, several editors (me included) have already tried to persuade the Madonna fans it should be merged, but we have are having no luck. It is one of the reasons I was part of the "cover versions" discussion mentioned immediately above this section, because there is no wikipolicy on the matter. You should really have a look at the history and the talk page! This is one of the reasons I don't like songs named after performers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Two issues?

Aren't there two issues here:

1. How many articles?
2. Name of article?

I think we ought to have one article if it's the same song. In some rare cases there may be songs with a common background that have become two (or more) songs over time and those can be exceptions, treated whatever way makes the most sense. For most songs, "Fever" included, there ought to be one article.

I think I'd use the songwriter's name to disambiguate the article name (if necessary), and then use redirects to handle the various ways readers might attempt to find it. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are two separate issues, I chose the Fever articles as a way of showing what the problem is with naming after artists, so to a certain extent they are interrelated. I originally preferred songs to be disambiguated by songwriters, but I was put off it when somebody pointed out that we could have things like Love Child (R. Dean Taylor, Frank Wilson, Pam Sawyer, Deke Richards and Henry Cosby song. Luckily there is only one Love Child (song) at the moment. You would also run into problems when there are different language versions credited to different lyricists. I certainly still prefer songwriter over artist, but I think year of publication/release is neat, verifiable and unlikely to cause many edit wars, if not aethetically pleasing. I have changed my mind once, I could easily be persuaded to change it again. Are there any other solutions to these problems? --Richhoncho (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

On the first issiue, I think there's a fair consensus that there should be just one article. Using songwriter names has two problems: Richhoncho's comment is one -- try "Make Love to Me" for an even bigger list of songwriters -- but there's another question: whan order to put the names in. I sometimes see the lyricist listed before the composer, sometimes the reverse. It just seems to me that year of publication is the simplest, least ambiguous way to do it. -- BRG (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The year is OK; I suggested using the songwriter(s) because there was less chance of ambiguity. As you and others have said, however, songs written by a committee would have long, unwieldy names. Do we need to worry about two songs of the same name written in the same year? — John Cardinal (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

BRG, it used to be standard practice the lyricist(s) were first and the composer(s) second, last time I signed a songwriter's contract it still defined separately even though in reality there is no such division of labors. You would default to either the way it was on record label or listed in ASCAP/BMI/SESAC etc (they may now alphabeticalize for all I can remember), but I accept your arguments against songwriters because it is never as clear cut as that. Make Love to Me is about 2 songs, that page should become a disambig and an article for each song created.

On Make Love to Me you are absolutely right. I just had too much on my plate to do it, but there SHOULD be two articles and a disambiguation page. But I was talking about the 1954 song specifically.-- BRG (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

John Cardinal, a song title is the product branding and if there were 2 songs released in the same territories the same year with the same title one company/artist would find a way of renaming it so it is clear to the public which song is which. Having said that, I am sure there are instances, even if I know of none. I think we have to cross that particular bridge if and when we come across it.--Richhoncho (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Power of Love (Jennifer Rush song) and The Power of Love (Huey Lewis and the News song) were both released in 1985. Jumping the gun slightly in November 1984 was The Power of Love (Frankie Goes to Hollywood song). None of these are cover versions, although the Jennifer Rush one has been covered notably by Laura Branigan and Céline Dion. --JD554 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good spotting, JD. I knew there had to be, even if I couldn't think of examples. That particular bridge needs to be crossed fairly quickly after all. As a matter of curiousity ASCAP has 96 songs listed that have "The Power of Love" as a title, alternate title or similar title. Fortunately most of them aren't notable as well. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really an active member of the project but I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs and I've encountered this problem many many times. I think disambiguating by year is the best idea and most practical. That being said, there's a real issue with songs that have been covered by gazillions of artists: in some cases many versions were charted hits and in other cases many versions were also singles for which we want to add info. Take, say, Twist and Shout. The Beatles version should probably have its own article since there's quite a bit of info about it. Moreover, the article should probably have infoboxes for all of the hit versions, including the versions of Salt n Pepa, Brian Poole and the Tremeloes, Chaka Demus and Pliers and probably a few others I missed. In many cases, we could split the article and use {{main}} to make the articles easier to read. Pichpich (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. An article called Twist and Shout is about the song, it is NOT about the performers, the piece of plastic it came on, the record label, all of which is subsidiary information pertinent to the song. Information about the song should be in the same place and the only reason to split would be because of size. It's how WP treats every other article, why should a song be treated different? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is about the song. All I'm saying is that the lengthy discussion on the Beatles' version can definitely stand on its own. Moreover, it's a little silly to have this humongous infobox about the Beatles which includes the list of 14 tracks which have nothing to do with the song. Speaking of which, the "Single" infobox is way overused. This is particularly striking in articles like these: it would be more natural to have one infobox about the song and its cover versions. Pichpich (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As John Cardinal brought it up I thought it might be useful to see a sample of songs that have 2 articles. The list also include translations and remixes by the same artist.

Original version	Later version
Feeling Good	Feeling Good (Michael Bublé song)
Fever (1956 song)	Fever (Madonna song)
Guantanamera	Guantanamera (Wyclef Jean song)
Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder song)	Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song)
Hit the Road Jack	Hit the Road Jack (Residents cover)
In My Secret Life	In My Secret Life (song)
Jesus Is Just Alright	Jesus Is Just Alright (song)
Kiss Me (Tin Tin song)	Kiss Me (Stephen Duffy song)
Mamma Mia (song)	Mamma Mia (A*Teens)
Me and Mrs. Jones	Me and Mrs. Jones (Michael Bublé song)
Meglio Stasera	It Had Better Be Tonight (Meglio Stasera)
Oh, Boy! (song)	Oh Boy (Mud song)
Perfect Day	Perfect Day (Duran Duran song)
Que reste-t-il de nos amours?	I Wish You Love (song)
River (song)	The River (Sara Bareilles song)
Save the Last Dance for Me	Save the Last Dance for Me (Michael Bublé song)
System Addict	System Addict 2005
The Riddle (Nik Kershaw song)	The Riddle (Gigi D'Agostino)
White Lines (Don't Don't Do It)	White Lines (Duran Duran song)
You're My Heart, You're My Soul	You're My Heart, You're My Soul '98

--Richhoncho (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting notability criteria

I'm pretty sure nobody wants to take up that fight but the notability criteria for songs are causing problems. While working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs, I find many instances in which a song stub was replaced by a redirect without any merge of the content (see Music (Erick Sermon and Marvin Gaye song) or Just Another Day (Jon Secada song)). I also see a number of cases where some enthusiastic newbie starts articles on his favorite band's most important songs only to find all his work turned into redirects within a few seconds and without any sort of notification, explanation or encouragement to expand the more deserving stubs. Moreover, people don't bother to classify the redirects as Category:foo songs (see just about any random example) and more importantly don't bother to check that the song is indeed insignificant. The language used in WP:NSONG basically encourages this and while I understand the motivation behind it, its impact is negative. I'd rather have a ton of stubs that are properly written and properly categorized than a ton of redirects to places with zero info on the subject. Pichpich (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I have removed the merge tag for Music as notability is established (#2 Billboard RnB chart). It's still a pretty useless unreferenced article, and I fully comprehend why an editor put the tag on in the first place. The 3 articles I checked on Missing encyclopedic articles had been created as redirects for which neither of us can complain. I also think we need to keep an eye on the greater picture, that WP is not a music encyclopedia, but a general encyclopedia, I abhor the idea that every song released should be here, be no more that a stub, and have no chance of saying anything more than "this song existed." What the project needs to be taken seriously by other editors is more featured articles and less stubs. If was I to re-write WP:NSONG, I wouldn't reduce the notability, but make it clearer speaking! OTOH If you do have case of excessive deletion let me know and I'll come over and try and save the article. BTW Have you ever patrolled new articles, everytime a bunch of schoolkids decide on a name for their band they decide they need a WP article to be taken seriously (notwithstanding they have to have music lessons next). Totally soul destroying in an editor's view. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement about quality being more important than quantity and I've fought for that (though not under this alternate account). But in this case, we're talking about net loss of information. I would have no quibbles about applying the current standards if they were being applied correctly and in a somewhat coherent way. Pichpich (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an added emphasis on merging songs to an appropriate artist or album article, and not simply perform a redirect for "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs". --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely; I would support this more than half-heartedly. Where's the proposal? I can't wait to see who argues against this one ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More Instrument Info

There needs to be more info on wikipedia concerning instruments used in songs, as some MIDI composers such as myself look to Wikipedia to find out what instruments are being used on each song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.97.61 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Songs by genre

The category "songs by genre" is a misnomer, a song is specifically the melody and lyrics, and, as such, can be recorded with a different arrangements in many different genres. Therefore the category should be along the lines of "recordings by genre." Obviously for some what I am saying might appear to be sacrilegious, but does anybody have any ideas how to overcome this? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

INVITATION to discussion regarding the use of Succession boxes at HERE

Hello, Regarding the project page section Charts and succession, I would like to extend an invitation to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk page for record charts
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

(relating to the above discussion on songwriting credits)

Both "written by" and "credited to" are important pieces of information, and as an encyclopedia we shouldn't compromise on stating both. I suggest we update {{Infobox single}} etc. to take a "Credited to" parameter and simply state both facts in the infobox. It can be an optional parameter so the line's omitted in articles not using it. (Personally I also think the article prose should make mention of either, both, or neither, depending on what's interesting and useful in that particular article. I've heard it said that the infobox should only summarize what the prose already states, but I don't see why that should have to be so. Anyway, that's a separate discussion.)

• Proposal: add an optional parameter, "Credited to", to {{Infobox single}}. PL290 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose. Songwriting is something done outside the public spotlight, songwriting partners may or may not confer with each other when a song is written. The actual credits are often disputed by third parties, usually fraudulently (FWIW, this is why publishers and record companies in the US won't accept unsolicited material). Singers often claim a songwriting credit for recording the song. If WP uses a box as suggested above it would infer that when the box was NOT used that the credits are correct, which in many cases certainly wouldn't be true. There's a 101 other reasons I can think of to oppose this, for instance, there's plenty of examples where the advertised singer of a song didn't actually sing on the record, where producers didn't produce, where musicians didn't play. Don't get me started on singers who mime on stage. And you want to define the songwriters? Can't be done! --Richhoncho (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The "Writer" parameter in the Infobox is essentially the same as "Credited to". The information entered in this field should list who was officially credited for writing the song, and it usually is. Creating a separate "Credited to" parameter would potentially unleash a Pandora's box of unreliable "Writer" credits, on any page with an Infobox; plus it would necessitate that all "Writer" info be transferred to "Credited to", all over WP. Making the parameter optional would prevent neither a potential quagmire of uncited information nor untold numbers of endless edit wars. Discussions expounding on the writing of a song belong in the prose, and need to be cited... Doc9871 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support We don't need to make the infobox script itself more complicated than it is, but we should reflect and summarize the prose accurately (as is the purpose of infoboxes in the first place). I suggest following the example set by film infoboxes, which clarify offical credits as necessary on an article-by-article basis. Ultimately, what's of far more importance is the article body; if various relibale sources verify that the official songwriter credit it does not reflect the nature of its authorship, then that must be noted per Wikipedia:Verifiability. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose We only need one field in the infobox and it should reflect the official credit. Other claims should be covered in the body of the article where they can be addressed in detail if necessary. That evidence tends to be comments from interviews (or similar weak material) and it often involves conflicting and/or imprecise claims. The body of the article is a better place to provide such information. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"That evidence tends to be comments from interviews (or similar weak material) and it often involves conflicting and/or imprecise claims". That's a very broad assertion. Also, interviews are perfectly valid sources, if printed in reliable secondary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think my assertion is broad but accurate. Clearly, there will be counter examples such as when a reporter or other reliable third-party is present when a song is written. I suspect—but can't prove—such cases will be in the minority. The evidence for the legal credits is more formal and involves contracts or other business agreements. I am not disputing other evidence exists or arguing for the exclusion of that evidence, but I feel strongly that (A) it should be covered in the body of the article, and (B) it is unlikely such evidence will outweight the formal/legal evidence. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"is unlikely such evidence will outweight the formal/legal evidence". As I've pointed out before, it's quite common to put inaccurate credits on a product, for a number of reasons. Film credits are especially notorious for this. Furthermore, "formal/legal" evidence needs to consist of more than simply "that's the official credit that appears on a song". We need secondary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The infobox should list the legal credit for songs as listed by the song's publisher and the performing rights clearinghouse which in the USA is either BMI or ASCAP. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Are any regular WikiProject Songs members going to leave comments? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So if I had made a voluntary note that I was a part of the project my opinion would carry more weight? I think I will let my contributions speak for themselves. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect Wesley's intention is to emphasize that despite (prior to this edit) being a subsection of "Beatles songwriting credits", it's not just a Beatle-related discussion as the infobox is project-wide. With hindsight I should probably not have appended it to this section, and I've now moved it outside. PL290 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I understood that the question related to all songs, even though the question arose through a debate about the Beatles. Certainly, by definition, the proposal would have to affect all songs. I responded at the top of this sub-section accordingly. It's the comment that WikiProject Songs members might carry more weight, although on reflection I don't think Wesley meant it the way I read it. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's what PL290. While this debate spun out of Beatles page discussions, it's important to consider this will affect all song articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Some support (being the proposer) - it seems to be less straighforward than I thought when I proposed it, but the implicit debate that's continued in the responses doesn't seem to me to have reached a compelling conclusion. I hope others can clarify further in support or opposition to help us all come to the right view of this. PL290 (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

4 opposed (1 "vehemently") : 2 supporting (1 "weak" & 1 "some" support). I think we can see the handwriting on the wall... Doc9871 (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is not a vote (see WP:VOTE). It's a discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

By "others" I was in fact referring to the wider community as distinct from those who have already expressed an opinion above! PL290 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! Yeesh... sorry for "piping up" again... Maybe they should string me up and hang me from a tree, the way you're talkin'. Whoa, boy!

The "sample vote" is indicative of how all others would vote. If it were 60/40 or even 70/30 here, maybe it would have a chance; but it's not even close. I'm a betting man, and I would not bet on this motion passing based on this performance. Please, no offense to you intended at all (& sorry to speak again when I wasn't spoken to) - I just can't see any other outcome than this small representation. I'm just being a realist here... Doc9871 (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no offense taken by me; very sorry to see some appears to have been taken by you: I meant none. Thank you for your analysis, which I cannot fault, though as you say, it's a very small sample. The point is that the discussion to date has been somewhat insular (Beatles-only), owing to my bad judgement in where I placed the proposal, and has only just been explicitly extended to the wider community by Wesley's posts both here and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Song_credits yesterday. So it is those potential further responses I am hoping will bring further clarification. Sorry for the misunderstanding and offense I caused with my jocular previous post. PL290 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with a consensus being reached down the line either wa, but I sure would like to see more commentary, because I've seen plenty of discussions that gather few voices but then later blew up into huge controversies when changes were implemented and a wider community finally caught wind of it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps somebody would like to also propose the same with artists. For instance, Yesterday's info box should read song PERFORMED by Paul McCartney and session musicians, CREDITED to The Beatles. Hope you all understand the irony! --Richhoncho (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point. I think what you've just demonstrated is that whether or not we identify two separate pieces of information, we need more precise terms—and that if we only have one, it should be the official credit. "Writer" is too vague a term because in the sense discussed in the article, the writer of "Hey Jude" is indeed Paul McCartney. That imprecision is precisely what gave rise to something approximating edit-warring over the "Hey Jude" infobox, and consequently to this discussion. What I can't see is how you personally feel the infobox should be used, and whether you feel there is any improvement that can be made. It sounds as though you would even oppose making the term more precise, because in your "vehement opposition" above, you say about the existing proposal, "it would infer that when the box was NOT used that the credits are correct, which in many cases certainly wouldn't be true [...] the advertised singer of a song didn't actually sing on the record [...] And you want to define the songwriters? Can't be done!". If it can't be done, why do we have an infobox that purports to do it? If, as you say, there are articles where the credits are "certainly not correct", shouldn't those articles be fixed, and shouldn't the infobox facilitate correct and accurate information? As an encyclopedia, we present what facts we can; why compromise the facts by shoehorning them into one vaguely-named field, forced to choose one statement over another? Again: I am not saying the proposal for two fields is necessarily the right answer, but I feel we haven't got to the bottom of this yet and there must be some change that can be made to the infobox to remove the imprecision. PL290 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You bring up some very good points. I think the field could be better delinated, or even completely reconsidered. Honestly, there's a lot of conventions in music articles that have been around "just because" for years and no one's really thought about them in-depth. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to variance in the article where appropriate and verified, but also I agree with Steelbeard1 above who says that the infobox should contain the writers as confirmed by the PRO. Whoever wrote a song the credits as contained in the PRO is the defining statement - this saves on edit wars, contradictory information, and downright cussedness on the part of some editors. Also, it appears to be WP policy (if not written certainly implied). It also enforces (I shall talk about Beatles only because it's a familiar subject to most of us) what Lennon/McCartney intended. I don't think it is beholding on WP to re-assign songwriter credits. Although I am not in dispute with whether McCartney is the primary writer of, say, Yesterday and Hey Jude, I find it incomprehensible that none of the other 3 Beatles (or even George Martin) made contributions to the songs which would entitle them to a "legal" share of the songwriting royalties. It's just the way a band, a couple of musician friends, or any recording session of a new song works. If your proposal is accepted then every song must be defined by both criteria, and the truth is, in 99% of cases it can't be done, we know certain people in the music business did claim songwriter credits, but we can never know which songs they did not write or co-write. If you don't beleive, here's a couple of the more noteable people doing this, Alan Lomax, Elvis Presley, Don Robey, Norman Petty. Nobody can establish which specific songs they actually contributed to and which they didn't. Look at Masters of War, somebody has already introduced your idea, and taking what the article says at face-value it is so wrong it is laughable. If you want a songwriter-based target why don't you ensure that there are actually songwriter credits on every song (including albums) at WP - there's plenty without - also perhaps WPProject Songs should be altered to include categorisation by songwriter for every song (I've spent most of this year doing this!). Now there's some jobs that can and need to be done! Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, as per what PL290 and WesleyDodds were suggesting above, lets change the name of the field in the infobox from "Writer(s)" to "Writing credit". That is more precise and wouldn't lead to any ambiguity over whether we are trying present the actual writer or the credited writer. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I could then downgrade my "vehemently oppose" down to "oppose" because I still have an underlying disgust at the core of these proposals - that songwriters and the music industry are lying thieving b*st*rds and can't be trusted under any circumstance - after all that's what "credited writer" and "actual writer" infers. By all means put contradictory information in the text, including rebuttals, when appropriate, but to elevate theft and plagiarism to commonplace...No, this is POV stuff. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned theft and plagiarism except you, even Paul McCartney hasn't. The POV stuff appears to be coming from your direction. Saying "Writing credit" or "Credited writer" implies nothing except what it is, the person or persons who have been credited with writing the song. I really don't see how that is POVish. --JD554 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in respect of Lennon/McCartney, who had agreed that credits should be shared - I have no problem with that whatsover, (although perhaps on reflection every song article should clearly state they agreed to share) but this proposal is not only in respect of LenMac, and that's where a whole can of worms is opened, and why I re-iterate, again, to separate "actual writer" from "credited writer" is so wrong. Amongst other reasons it could be considered accusations of criminal activity by one or more songwriter (yes, I do mean criminal) and/or libellous statements repeated at WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it simply indicates who the credited writer is. There are perfectly legal reasons why official songwriting credits may do indicate who actually wrote it. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please expand... --Richhoncho (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've explained numerous times on this talk page how credits for works can vary for a number of reasons. For example, someone removes their name from a work because they are disatisfied with the end product. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I read all your posts on this subject but didn't see anything relevant to the discussion in hand. A song can't be released without the author's consent so being dissatisfied with the end product doesn't work for me. Do you have any more reasons? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A band has agreed to list all band memebers on the song credits as part of an all-for-one agreement, regardless if all band members helped write a specific song or not (ie. U2, R.E.M.). A band member must be listed due to contractual reasons, even if he's left the band by that point (Lol Tolhurst was credited as performing "other instruments" on The Cure's Disintegration even though both he and the band agree he didn't do anything on the album, which is why he was fired halfway through production). And, as I said, someone removes their credit from a work because of disagreements (yes, works can be released without the author's consent by the record label, who might own the recordings in a given situation). The point is there's nothing inherently POV about about reconfiguring the credits field this way, and certainly no inherent implications of illegality. If you think there is, I don't know what else to tell you aside from the process of crediting artists for creative works is more complicated than it appears to be.WesleyDodds (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is totally at odds with what Compulsory licence says, which says "This provision of the Copyright Act allows a person to make a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public,..." (my emboldening) which confirms that author's consent is required for first release and is protected for subsequent releases. Do you require specific examples? Or would you like me to find a copy of the specific legislation? BTW I am looking at this from a songwriter's perspective as opposed to a band perspective. But if we talk about songs we have to consider ALL entries. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On a wider note, these are standards for music articles we're discussing here... it strikes me that the music infobox documentation ought to become (in status at least) part of WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD where these and other aspects can be reviewed and improved in their proper and wider context. Rather than force the issue by raising that proposal straight away at MUSTARD, I'd prefer to get to the bottom of what's bothering Richhoncho first. Rich, I honestly can't see what the existing format achieves in your view! Why are you so keen for the infobox to remain unchanged? From the language you've used above, sounds like you've had a bad experience of this yourself, perhaps getting burned over songwriting credits for your own material? Sorry if that is the case. Right now, you make it sound as though you would simply oppose any change whatever it was, even just to rename the one field, but I'm baffled as to why that is. All folks are saying is, let's find the best way to present the facts. Not to try and push one POV over another—just clear facts, and only, as you point out, when such are verifiable. Please try to explain—in objective terms—how you justify your opposition to clearly stating verifiable facts, so we can all find common ground and move forward with some kind of improvement here. PL290 (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside: As I understand it MUSTARD has been out of favor for years. It's a reminant from years ago, and and isn't updated much these days. That's something that should be replaced, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Noted. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about that sometime. Also see new proposal below for renaming the existing infobox field. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No I have not had bad experiences regarding copyright, unless you consider listening to every muppet and his dog claim s/he had been plagiarised, or thinks they will be plagiarised, or think they understand copyright law as it applies to songwriting! The bottom line is much as I put at the top of this article, whereas I accept that occasionally the writers and credited writers are not exactly the same persons (especially in bands) to change the info box generally we have a real problem, we can't verify the facts (what two people do in private etc...), if we put information in the article we can say "XXX claimed that" that's fine, it is a measured verifiable statement, if we put it into the infobox we make it a statement of fact. In most cases it is not a statement of fact, it is a repeated opinion, sometimes even a malicious repeated opinion, that's why I am so opposed to this proposal. At least the credits held by the PRO are verifiable and should be considered conclusive for info box purposes. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. So, from your last sentence on conclusive infobox contents, I think you are not now opposed to the other suggestion of keeping the one field but giving it a better name. The infobox will then conclusively show the right meaning, and editors will not need to war over what goes in that one field. See new proposal below. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in again... but only for fear of a lambasting! Please, have pity on me, as I only mean well <sniffle>. Please see my recent revision of Penny Lane (in the introduction of that article). Paul has been credited first (by citation), and Lennon/McCartney has also been credited (cited as well). The Infobox retains the officially listed credit. Paul wrote it, it was credited to L/M, and both facts are now cited on this particular page... Doc9871 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but it should actually be cited in the article body, not the lead. As the lead summarizes the article, it shouldn't require citations per WP:LEAD. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox proposal 2: rename existing field

(relating to the above unpopular proposal and the preceding discussion on songwriting credits)

Proposal: change the name of the field in the infobox from "Writer(s)" to "Writing credit".

• Support as proposer. Per the above discussion, there now appears to be universal agreement that the infobox should state the officially credited writer, even if the article explains that the actual writer was different. Giving the infobox field a precise name will remove the ambiguity for the reader, and remove the cause of edit-warring over what goes in the field which gave rise to the above discussion. PL290 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument might carry some weight if all the legal implications were understood by those editing WP. As the implications are not known, why open up Pandora's box? If your change goes through you will need to put an extensive footnote to explain why it is there. The two terms are synonymous in 99% of cases and when they are not it will need careful explantion - not something that would or could be done in an infobox....Come on, just leave it alone... --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect: please re-read the proposal. Stating who the song's officially credited to does not require legal understanding or any accompanying explanation, so this objection does not apply. PL290 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And with respect to you, renaming "writers" to "writing credits" carries a whole load of implications, otherwise there would be no point in the proposal in the first place!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whole load of implications? No. One implication only: to clarify that the field contains the official credit. Which you've agreed it should contain. Richhoncho, it would help others to understand your concerns if, rather than hinting darkly at implications, you could identify an example of an article where stating it's the writing credit will cause a problem, and exactly what that problem is. Wikipedia is not censored. PL290 (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am a censor now, am I? At least we have got to the name calling part of the "discussion" which signifies the proposer admits the proposal is lost. I have quite clearly stated several reasons why neither of these proposals should see the light of day, none of which the supporters have addressed. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I thought this whole shebang was dead and buried. It certainly should be. Let me explain very carefully why this should not be done. Unlike film-work, songwriting is not generally "work-for-hire." Bearing this in mind, it is requisite of copyright laws (at least in those signatory countries to the Berne Convention) to be credited for your own work. You can share it, you can give ALL the royalties away, but you must acknowledge your own authorship. Now are you really sure you want to accuse people of breaking the law? And for what reason? And at what point does some claim of authorship take precedence over a legally binding document lodged with the PRO? I accept there are instances where there is a difference, but not enough for this proposal and all you have created is another opportunity for edit wars. What is your reason for this? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• No one's accusing anyone of breaking the law. Case in point: Yoko Ono helped write "Give Peace a Chance" but she's not credited. Paul McCartney is credited, but did not actually writer any of it. The current "writer" field invites debate over whether or not Yoko and Macca should be listed, while "writing credit" would list John Lennon and Paul Mccartney. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point - you ARE accusing YO of breaking the law, and that also fails WP:BLP. I wish I knew why you 2 guys are still going on about this. We could all be doing something more useful. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Give Peace a Chance: The article infobox has Writer=John Lennon, and that matches BMI. The song was originally credited to L/M, but it was changed somewhere along the line, and the article describes that in some detail. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I took Wesley's comment at face value. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My response was intended for him as he used it as an example. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Opening up a legal Pandora's Box? Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• How so? The point of this is to defer to the official songwriting credits. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support per PL290. It will clarify exactly what should go in the infobox so as to avoid endless debates about a relatively minor area in individual music articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see a practical reason to change it from "Writer(s)". Why not change it to "Written by", eliminating the "Credited to" idea, of course? This is more neutral than the ominous-sounding "Writing credit". "Writer(s)" covers both singularly and plurally credited songwriters in one easy parameter; that's the way it is now because it seems to make the most sense. "Writing credit" sounds cold, and the reasons for this second proposed change are still rooted in the original proposal (which is admittedly "unpopular"). "Writer(s)", "Written by", "Writing credit" It's all about the officially credited citation anyway, correct? "Writer(s)" is where the official songwriting credit belongs, as it is presently, and I see no ambiguity there whatsoever. The supporters of this change are, in my opinion, good and well-meaning editors. I personally, however, feel that a change here is unwarranted. I encourage all editors to discuss here... Doc9871 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary; "Writer" is simple and accurate. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, it isn't, hence the debate on Beatles articles. This is an attempt to rectify that. Otherwise, the debate over "official" songwriters/actual songwriters in the infobox remains. "Writer credit" removes the ambiguity. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• You say it's not accurate because you disagree that the legal credit is accurate. I don't, and there's lots of support for my position: every album label, album sleeve, album booklet, published discography, BMI, ASCAP, Allmusic, etc., show the legal credit. Furthermore, it's a waste of time to rename infobox fields to resolve potentially ambiguous names; they are all potentially ambiguous. A song name could be under dispute, the name of the producer(s), etc. So what's next? "Song name credit"? Obviously, no. Instead, we use a simple term in the infobox and use the article prose to explain things. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• A legal credit sometimes isn't accurate, as I have stated before with several examples from various types of media. Renaming the field "writer credit" at least specifies for editors what should go into the field. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And as I pointed out already comparison with other media is not appropriate, please see Work for hire. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Succinct and accurate. (written in response to John Cardinal's post above before additional comments added by another editor) --Richhoncho (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (Italics added later) --Richhoncho (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support This clearly is necessary due to problems with certain articles, such as "Hey Jude". I'm also at a loss as to how clarifying that the writer required is the credited writer could be a legal minefield. If the credited writer is the legal writer there are no legal implications. But if we simply ask for writer, legal problems could arise if we try to say who is documented as having written the song instead of the credited writer of the song. Seems a no-brainer to me. --JD554 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The supporters of the proposal (I would think the propser) should use the {rfctag|prop} tag to reach the wider community, if consensus is what you seek. The only way this could pass would be if there were a strong consensus, not just from this group (which there is clearly not), but from the community as a whole. There's no use debating the same basic issue, as we have two small groups who are never going to convince each other which view is wrong and which is right. Reach out, reach out and touch the larger community, as this is the only hope there is before the proposal is eventually closed through "No consensus". Thank you for your time... Doc9871 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "Writing credit" is simple and accurate, and if it is used in all applicable infoboxes then it is neutral and does not in itself make any implication as to whether or not the credited songwriter(s) and actual songwriter(s) differ in relation to the song in question. I have studied copyright law (primarily UK) and am not aware of any legal mandate which compels authors to take full credit for their work whether they want to or not: if such a thing exists at all I'm sure it's an archaic technicality, and certainly not in line with widely accepted modern practice. It's not unusual, for example, for bands to share songwriting credits for all songs even if not all their songs are written by all band members. For instance, Keane routinely credits all 3 band members for all songs, even though many are written by Tim Rice-Oxley alone, and Crystal Ball was co-written with Elijah Volkova who is uncredited on the album, though Keane's first album co-credits producer James Sanger with some songs he wasn't actually involved in writing. Vitas' Lucia Di Lammermoor is an adaptation of an aria from the Donizetti opera which is now in the public domain, but is credited on Vitas' CD to Eric Serra, who incorporated the same part of Il dolce suono into the soundtrack of The Fifth Element (where it was performed by the alien Diva Plavalaguna). Renaming the infobox field accommodates situations like this and the Beatles examples without inviting edit wars to the same extent as the current version, and of course there's still the opportunity to clarify in the article text where appropriate. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Firstly copyright law is subject to international agreement (Berne Convention), so although there are minor differences from country to country, there are no significant differences, so where you "studied copyright law" doesn't make much difference. Secondly, I said the author must (except in work for hire cases, which don't generally apply to songwriting) be credited for their own work, I specifically went on to say they could share or give away their royalties (different issue), I don't remember saying this was a copyright issue, but I'll see if I can come up with some legislation for you as you have now called me to verify. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment #2 A "little bird" informs me that Michael Stipe wrote most of the lyrics for R.E.M.'s songs. Yet the band credit is officially (and variably) listed as "Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe", "Berry Buck Mills Stipe", "Berry, Buck, Mills, Stipe", etc. How do we show that Stipe wrote most of the lyrics on R.E.M. pages? I say, add "Writing (lyric) credit" for lyricists like Stipe, "Music (music) credit for the rest of the band, and the rest will kind of sort itself out. Do I here a call for a third proposal here? Anyone? Hello??"!! Doc9871 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The basis of this proposal is to continue current infobox practice (show official writing credit only) but fix the caption so as to remove the issues of ambiguity and edit-warring. Currently, aspects such as you describe may be clarified in the article text where appropriate—this proposal does not seek to change that practice. PL290 (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Be careful what you wish for. See With My Eyes Wide Open, I'm Dreaming. It used to be convention to name lyricist and composer separately, and also convention to name the lyricist first on the credits. There used to be 3 categories for Johnny Mercer, songs with lyrics by, songs with music by and songs written by, according to these proposals we need to split those categories into three categories "written by" and "credited to" and "songs WP don't know whether the official credits are correct" (well you never know who wrote what). I mean even Michael Stripe could be buying his lyrics as a "work-for-hire" from the guys at Hallmark Cards... I jest, but it is the nub of the problem. But there is a very good reason why, say, REM share the credits, that's their decision, I can't see that is WP's job to unravel what REM or any other band wanted. The real problem with this proposal is nothing to do with bands, but songwriters not in bands is a totally different matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

    • That's a bunch of bullplop!! Ringo wrote it all!!!! Now prove me wrong, lest my cane find your backside!!! :P Doc9871 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• As somebody who was at some of the sessions for Wild Life (Wings album) I can confirm you are right, now all I have to do is blog it and it will be true, Ringo did write it all. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment#2.1 Seriously. I want a "Lyric" credit in the song Infobox as well. This is no joke: it will only clarify who wrote the lyrics to a particular song (regardless of "official credit" (pish posh!). "Lyric credit" is the next natural step, and I pray that the proposal passes, so that we can avoid future edit wars regarding "official lyricist" vs "actual lyricist"... Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that might fall under WP:POINT. --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Whooah! Oh, my word! "J'accuse!" - that's how they say it in French. That's not nice at all! Here I am, trying to make a resectable point about Infobox credits, and instead I'm called a "disruptive, sarcastic, bastard scumbag " (my interpretation). Well, slap my ass and call me "Sally", but I' sure that nothing I've ever typed on WP is going to get me blocked or banned. You're welcome to "rake through the muck", if you feel that strongly about it! WP:POINT indeed... Doc9871 (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now going around in circles and getting nowhere, so I thought it was time to recap my oppostion, add some points I promised, and to make a few more comments.

1. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works establishes the right of the author which, according to Donald S. Passman's All You Need to Know About the Music Business (neither of which have WP articles, but are used for references) states on page 299 (UK 2002 edition) under the general heading of "Creative controls" 1. the right to be identified as the author; 2. the right to object to derogatory treatment, 3. the right not to be falsely attributed. ... It also goes on to say "By the way, you are not allowed to transfer your rental monies to anyone else." This admittedly applies to the UK and other civilised countries which acknowledge "moral rights," So in the US it is different, however Passman goes on to say the author can establish these rights by putting them in a songwriting contract. I think that is enough to confirm songwriter's rights. It's a poor article but a trip to Songwriter is recommended here.
2. Next we have to consider what the proposed "writer credit" actually means. For those taking part in this discussion it means the person who is credited with writing the song. Simple enough, but for others what does it mean? It signifies that the actual writer and the writer credited are probably different people, the people who created articles like Fever (Madonna song) are going to be very confused - not only did Madonna not write the song, but the people who are credited might not have written the song either. Notwithstanding this proposal is supposed to simplify matters at WP!
3. As an aside I saw in one newspaper, as part of a quiz, "Who wrote Without You (Badfinger song)?" The answer was Harry Nilsson, the WP article says Ham and Evans and ASCAP says something different again. And there are people who think they know who wrote a particular song and it is different from the official "credited" names. Aren't any alarm bells ringing yet?
4. The arguments for the proposal are all interested in bands/groups and I accept there are very astute and business reasons to credit everybody in the band as writers even though only one or more band members may have contributed to the song, it reduces disharmony, arguments about whose song is released and ensures the product is of the highest standard the band can attain. Some of you might like to take a trip to Muses Muse for a Q&A on a new band. Curious aside, can anybody think of a band where the singer wrote the music and one of the others in the band wrote the words?
5. Songwriters not attached to a particular band are my real problem. Just look at the preamble at Category:Songs written by Don Robey, to me its an injustice, Maybe Robey was sharp, maybe there is some truth in the accusation, but it is not always true in relation to every song.
6. A look at CfD Songs written by Norman Petty will confirm that variants of this argument has been raised before and voted down.
7. One of the arguments in favour of the proposal is that it will stop arguments, please look at an old version of BC Jean. Beyonce Knowles is accused of stealing a song from BC Jean and some editors were insistant that it was the truth - but we know it's all a publicity stunt, because, as I wrote earlier "What you are saying is totally at odds with what Compulsory licence says, which says "This provision of the Copyright Act allows a person to make a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public,..." (my emboldening) which confirms that author's consent is required for first release and is protected for subsequent releases." Another example of a songwriter refusing to release a song is when Dylan stopped Columbia releasing his original version duet version of Mr. Tamborine Man as a single - not yet in the article but I will add as soon as I can find the references.
8. One of the planks the proposers are relying on is how media treat the matter. And, as I have already said, comparisons with other media are just plain wrong. Films, journalism can, and are, completed as Work for hire.
9. I also made the point that, "Perhaps somebody would like to also propose the same with artists. For instance, Yesterday should read song PERFORMED by Paul McCartney and session musicians, CREDITED to The Beatles. I cannot for the life of me understand why songwriters must be treated so derogatory without a similar proposition for performers.
10. Another supporter of the proposal points out where a new song is based on an old song, I can't for the life of me see what is wrong with, say, All by Myself and its inclusion in Category:Popular songs based on classical works.
11. One might like to consider that it took over 30 years for a lawsuit over A Whiter Shade of Pale to come to court and the implications to this proposal.
12. The bottom line for me is the difference between "alleged" and "verifiable" and "writing credit" opens the door for lots of alleged and unverified information - and that is a recipe for disaster and as I keep pointing out we just cannot know who wrote what. It's as simple as that. Some of the claims of authorship are based on bitterness, on marketing requirements (yes it is the music business) and just plain misunderstanding of what copyright means.

You really need to re-read Wikipedia:Verifiability. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is the maxim "Verifiability, not truth". That means we go by what reliable third-party sources say, not necessarily what is the "truth", because there rarely is an objective truth. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, here are some reliable sources: the album label/album sleeve/album booklet, published discographies, BMI, ASCAP, Allmusic, etc. They all use the formal credits in similar ways to the way WP uses |writer= in the infobox, and they discuss other details in prose. Why should WP adopt a practice that is counter to the methods used by those reliable sources? — John Cardinal (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The intention is we'd be stating the official credits--as liner notes, BMI, etc. do--in the infobox. In contrast, we wouldn't be indicating uncredited authors that are revealed by third party sources such as books, articles, etc. (in contrast, liner notes and album sleeves are primary sources). That would be left for the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I'll leave you with one last thing to ponder, George Harrison was found in court to have inadvertently copied another song for My Sweet Lord, and as the article says, ASCAP only credits Harrison as writer. Now why is that?

Well, folks, I hope you are as bored with my post above as I am with this nonsensical proposal. But if anybody wants raise any pertinent "for the proposal" reasons I shall be more than happy to deal with them, but at least have the decency to see how it affects ALL songs and ALL songwriters. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-read Contains Mild Peril's comments. He was using law to illustrate why you've miscontrued the entire discussion. You are reading too much into the idea of merely renaming the field, to the point where some of your arguments are nonsensical (and you wave off any relevant counterexamples). We're not trying to define songwriting as a legal entity; we're trying to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability when it comes to the infobox, and cut down on confusion on that field. Despite your comment "The bottom line for me is the difference between "alleged" and "verifiable" and "writing credit" opens the door for lots of alleged and unverified information"; the proposal is actually intended to close that gap. We can either go by cited sources in the body, or by the publishing credits. It's as plain as day. No one is proposing anything more complicated than that. You act like verifying authorhsip information is some sort of impossible task, when it's done all the time on Wikipedia articles, not to mentioend Featured Articles like "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Simply leaving the field as the ill-defined "Writer" doesn't help. Also, it's important to note that not all music is work for hire. Ever heard of independent labels? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wesley, in reverse order, songwriting is generally NOT work for hire, this is the third time at least I have stated this on this page and you accuse me of saying it is. I can give you instances of when it is classified as work-for-hire, but I think you are already confused enough. I can assure you it is nothing to do with "labels," independent or otherwise, so again you have proved your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. If you are not going to pay attention to the counter-arguments then you are doomed to argue this to grave and beyond, excuse me if I am not going to join you there. I have re-read Mild Peril's comments and I think I drove a coach and horses through his argument and claims. Just because you got into an edit war (and the only one who has, as far as I am aware) over this issue doesn't mean to say the rest of WP are concerned, knowledgeable or aware of the subtle differences. The present infobox is simple and understandable, changing it and you will have to define actual and credited songwriters everytime. That proposal is already dead. The other identifiable problem it that it won't just be WesleyDodds who gets into edit wars but you will have lit the touch paper for loads of other well-meaning, but ultimately, idiots POV pushers, to get into edit wars. As far as I am concerned I have now fully referenced my statements, can find more if required...Now leave it alone. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have amended my post above, it did go a little far, but when you are *trying* to have discussion, but nobody is paying attention, it is a little frustrating... This is my last post on this subject, but I have made my opinion known and I am unlikely to change it, certainly what counter arguments have posted didn't make the grade for me. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIVIL. "Idiots" is not the word you want to use in talk page discussions. I am not confused at all by the way; I have been trying to explain points other editors have been trying to argue with you repeatedly. There's no legal issue here. If you think there is, take it to the legal desk. Basically the proposal is intended to simply state clearly how the "writer" field is typically used. It's no more complicated than that. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that in any battle against consensus, consensus always wins. Persistent losers who start edit wars get banned. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect: one of the principles of Wikipedia is consensus can change. And no one's trying to start an edit war here. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear who Steelbeard1 means by "persistent losers", but remember that consensus emerges and evolves through discussion. Consensus is not a fixed point to be "battled" against. In any case, the current proposal is a refinement of current practice to bring greater clarity—no consensus has previously been reached on this aspect. PL290 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

An example I can recall is with edit wars initiated by Das Ansehnlisch who resumed his edit warring after the block against him was lifted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm not seeing what relevance Das Ansehnlisch—or your opinion that he is a "persistent loser"—has to the current discussion. Perhaps you did not intend to imply WesleyDodds is a "persistent loser" with your remark above, but its intention remains unclear. PL290 (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If ever there was an edit war, this is one. We've got two factions, equally matched and hopelessly divided. This discussion rages on, certainly the longest on this page, currently. We've got perceived name-calling, "edit-jumping" (someone tell me the official term, but I'm forced to comment directly above a statement I made two days ago), raw nerves and no end in sight. "Drums... drums in the deep...". If I have to ask my admin "buddy" for advice, I will. He's very intelligent and reasonable, I assure you, and could solve this problem lickety-split... Doc9871 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. If this is going to be a trench battle to rival the Battle of the Somme, I'm going to slap the tag on. Not sure if this is the proper way to do it, being a novice editor (and any flak I get for this is on me), but here goes... Doc9871 (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Might also be worth moving the argument over to a dark corner of WP so we don't upset the natives, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions. Would you like to do the honors? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's best to continue it here. Otherwise it would be even harder to find. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is best to keep it here: surely the "natives"—among whom all who are contributing to this discussion presumably count themselves—are the very people with an interest, which is why the discussion is located here. PL290 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The story of "You Belong to Me (1952 song)" is an example that occurs to me. It's credited to Chilton Price, Pee Wee King, and Redd Stewart. Price wrote the song all by herself but gave King and Stewart credit so they would help market the song for her. Nobody challenges this. The distinction between "wrirer" and "credited to" is starkly clear here. -- BRG (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Elsewhere in Wikipedia

I asked WP:FILM how they handle credits in the infobox. Here's the response. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

...And I have explained more than once that comparison with other media is not appropriate. I would spell it out why it is inappropriate but there is plenty of evidence that you are not reading my comments. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say comparison with any other infobox type is entirely appropriate. There is nothing complicated about this. The aim is a simple and universal one: use precise terminology that reflects agreed usage. PL290 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the contents of the Bottom of the page box

Please join the discussion at LINK. For completeness of discussion please make any comments there. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Amendment to project page.

Unless there is a reasoned argument to oppose, I intend to change the project page, under the sub-section “categories” to

“Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable :-

1. a subcategory of Category:Songs by artist ("Category:<Artist name> songs") and
2. a subcategory of Category:Songs by year and (a subcategory of Category:Singles by year for singles).
3. The songwriters should be placed in either Category:Songs by songwriter (“Category:Songs written by <songwriter>”), Category:Songs by lyricist("Category:Songs with lyrics by <lyricist>") or Category:Songs by composer ("Category:Songs with music by <composer>"). Only one category should be created for each songwriter, so if a songwriter contributes words and/or music then the category should be in songs by songwriter only.
4. Other than Category:Songs by artist, "Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into at least two other subcategories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by country and one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre.

For example, "Country House" by Blur was released in 1995, so it is in Category:Blur (band) songs and Category:1995 singles while Category:Blur (band) songs is in Category:Songs by artist, Category:British rock songs, and Category:Alternative rock songs.

Note: For consistency, the artist name in "Category:<Artist name> songs" should usually be the same as the name in the title of the article.

Note: Please do not place song articles directly in Category:Songs or Category:Singles.”

You will also note I have removed (minus any disambiguation) from “Note: For consistency, the artist name in "Category:<Artist name> songs" should usually be the same as the name in the title of the article (minus any disambiguation).” as it is contradictory to the Blur example given. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you do when 57 different artists all recorded the song, 7 of them charted, 4 of them in one year and 3 in another year? -- BRG (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for bringing it up. I think I should add "Note: A song should only be categorised once in Category:Songs by year either by the year of first publication or release (whichever is earliest). Obviously if it is released as a single more than once it should be listed accordingly. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The example should be changed to include one that has been categorized under "Songs written by Foo" (or add the appropriate category to the Blur song). --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another good point. I have trying to think of one that is universally recognisable. I couldn't verify the writers for Blur song. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Version 2

Taking into consideration the points made above and further thoughts, I have amended the proposed guideline to :-

Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable :-

1. a subcategory of Category:Songs by artist ("Category:<Artist name> songs") and
2. a subcategory of Category:Songs by year and (a subcategory of Category:Singles by year for singles).
3. The songwriters should be placed in either Category:Songs by songwriter (“Category:Songs written by <songwriter>”), Category:Songs by lyricist("Category:Songs with lyrics by <lyricist>") or Category:Songs by composer ("Category:Songs with music by <composer>"). Only one category should be created for each songwriter, so if a songwriter contributes words and/or music then the category should be in songs by songwriter only.
4. Other than Category:Songs by artist, "Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into at least two other subcategories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by country and one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre.

For example, "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" by The Temptations was released in 1971, so it is in Category:The Temptations songs and Category:1971 singles, Category:Songs written by Barrett Strong, Category:Songs written by Norman Whitfield while Category:The Temptations songs is in Category:Songs by artist, Category:American songs, Category:Motown songs and Category:American songs and Category:Rhythm and blues songs. It is also in the category Category:The Rolling Stones songs because the The Rolling Stones recorded a notable version which is referred to in the article.

Note: For consistency, the artist name in "Category:<Artist name> songs" should usually be the same as the name in the title of the article.

Note: Please do not place song articles directly in Category:Songs or Category:Singles.

"Note: A song should only be categorised once in Category:Songs by year either by the year of first publication or release (whichever is earliest). Obviously if it is released as a single more than once it should be listed accordingly.

Note:Categories should only be created if there is a main article to support the article. i.e. do not create Category:Songs written by Foo if there is no corresponding article about Foo.

I will leave this on the talkpage for another week for further comments before adding to the project page. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop songs by decade categories

Hi folks

I thought that you should be notified that the by-decade categories of Pop songs have been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 12#Pop_songs_by_decade, where your comments would be welcomed.

The categories involved are:

• Category:1970s pop songs
• Category:1980s pop songs
• Category:1990s pop songs
• Category:2000s pop songs

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Official Airplay Chart

Hi,i created two pages Popular (The Veronicas song) and I Wanna Be In Love, however both are deleted as the only chart they charted on was the Official Australian Airplay chart. I think they shouldn't be deleted for this reason because an airplay chart is still an official chart. And both songs were official singles.Billy4kate,(talk)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:41, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Nat King Cole

I've a copy of 'Ain't Misbehavin' by Nat King Cole, but this cover version is not referenced under the title.

Can anyone edit the Wiki page to reflect this detail and advise when the Nat King Cole version was published.

Thanks

greg.spring@springelectronics.com

Removal of reviews from the album infobox

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? No. WP:Consensus states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." No vote has been put forth concerning this matter; no official "consensus" has been "reached". That's my 2¢, and I won't ask for it back. Keep arguing it out, I say... Doc9871 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It also states consensus can change. As it stands though, there's a clear slant towards removing them from the infobox. kiac. (talk-contrib) 11:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for consensus changing, as long as its done properly. I'm being very neutral here, not arguing the slant one way or the other - just that actual WP:Consensus has not been properly reached. We all gotta follow those crazy-ass rules... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)