Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Invitation to join the Grammy Awards task force

You are invited to join the Grammy Awards task force, a subproject of WikiProject Awards and prizes dedicated to improving articles and lists related to the Grammy Awards. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants.

In case any project members are interested in joining... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bubbling

Could everyone leave input here? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies#Bubbling ? Thanks! 03:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Independent music video article

Could people please comment at Talk:No Me Queda Mas (music video)#Proposed merge? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments required for peer review

Hi all, Just wanted to inform you that there is a peer review request for Jennifer Lopez's 2011 comeback single, with Pitbull, "On the Floor" at Wikipedia:Peer review/On the Floor/archive1. please feel free to comment. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing "release/radio" terminology battle

This has been going on for over a year and a half, and frankly I'm sick of it. I don't see why we have such a fascination with a release date, and quick not to say radio is one. I mean I was giving in at first, but now I see we are adding (radio) beside dates in album infoboxes (see Pink Friday) which to me looks jumbled, elongated, and as if I may put it this way, crappy. I also think it is silly to add "radio add date and release history" and all of this etc., to just elongate titles and the table of contents. I mean if radio is not a form of release, and a song only has a add date and is never released digitally or physically, were gonna just say that's not a single. Can we just please come to a consensus to end the back and forth editing, because I'm fed up with edit summaries "radio is NOT a form of release" "fixing title to including radio history" blahblahlbhlbahlbhl. What is the simple problem with just merging radio and release information into just a release history? I mean they have radio dates for a freaking reason... J Maybe some of us would stop nitpicking the work of others and worry less about technical things (the release history isn't even a component of WP SONGS!), and actually contribute information to the music range here on Wikipedia than seemingly undermining the work of others. ust my two pence.. Candyo32 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see HERE for proposed infobox single to resolve Radio dates being reported in infobox. Thus the (Radio) qualifier would no longer be needed and similar for the chrono sections as well. "radio add date and release history" is NOT meant to be "silly" or "to just elongate titles and the table of contents", but to accurately report on their industry. When they go through such pains to avoid calling radio a 'release' by using terms as 'radio add', 'going for adds' or 'impacting radio', we should do the same. We need to use their terminology. It is not proper for us to attempt to 'redefine' or 'misuse' their terminology. We are to report material according to their terminology.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to also mention that invites to join the discussion above have been placed some time ago on all the related infobox TALK pages as well as the TALK at Pink Friday and numerous other places.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Music published by Northern Songs

I have nominated the above category for renaming to Category:Songs published by Northern Songs. However, I am not convinced that this is correct, or whether the category is a relevant category. Perhaps those with knowledge could weigh in with suggestions and opionions. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's generally considered music publishing, and of course there is a great deal of published music other than songs, despite the fact that this particular publisher may focus on songs. Google song publishing and you get 100,000 hits. Google music publishing and you get 10,300,000. Best, Abrazame (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC nearing end

Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC has been relatively unattended, and I would like to hear more voices.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Phrase That Pays for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Phrase That Pays is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phrase That Pays until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrting credits for 21st century group songs

There may be a problem in the writing credits for certain Grammy Award for Song of the Year winners. Please comment at Talk:Grammy_Award#Grammy_Award_for_Song_of_the_Year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Charting history

I have created an article for Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), which won the 2005 Grammy Award for Record of the Year. I was wondering if people who know how to research charting history could give me some assistance with this song in time for it to appear in WP:DYK. Possibly, both versions of the song have charted, although the 2005 version did not make the Hot 100.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I did a research and found some stuff. I'll post it here:

The original version debuted on the Hot 100, Billboard issue dated May 20, 1967 (Link1). On the issue dated June 10, 1967 it reached number 37 on Hot 100 while debuting at number 48 on R&B Chart (Link2). By June 24, it had reached number 23 on Hot 100 and number 20 on R&B Chart. On July 15, it reached its peak of number 15 on Hot 100, and ascended to number 9 on R&B Chart. On July 12, still on number 15 (Link3) while number five (its peak) on R&B Chart. Next week the same positions (15 on Hot 100, 5 on R&B).

On August 12, 1967 "Here We Go Again" dropped out of the Hot 100 while descending to number 8 on R&B Chart. (Link4). In the UK, debuted at number 38 (Link4), and made a re-entry later (Link5).

The Jones duet version reached number 26 on Hot Digital Tracks chart (Link6) and number 73 on Hot Digital Songs chart (Link7). I also found this and this, both of which you may find useful. Hope these links help. Novice7 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the prompt and extensive response. Seeing as you may concur that this is a fairly high priority article, I will ask if you can find some further details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
What about the yearend charts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you confirm a peak on the UK charts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Have any other covers charted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you believe those 2004 chartings are peaks and can you find chart tenure duration info?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, sorry I forgot about the year-end charts. Here it is. "Here We Go Again" reached number 80 on the Hot 100 chart and 33 on R&B chart.
  • In the UK, the peak is number 38 (Link).
  • Sinatra version entered the Hot 100 at number 98 (link), the Easy listening chart at number 30 (link). It dropped off the Hot 100 next week, but moved to 19 on AC chart. (link). Unfortunately, a few issues are missing from the Google archive, so the correct peak on AC chart could not be verified. You can use this link to source the Hot 100 peak too. Strait version did not chart. (link).
  • Yes, the peak on Hot Digital Tracks is 26. The song charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart too, but as I do not have a subscription to Billboard, I cannot verify the peak on that. (The tenure can be verified by searching here.) Happy to help. Novice7 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, Billboard stopped publishing Bubbling Under on their magazine. It can only be viewed with a subscription to Billboard.biz. Novice7 (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes cover versions notable (worth including in an article)?

I did a peer review of the article on the single Si Una Vez, which lists 25 cover versions, 5 of which are by artists with articles (the rest are red links). To me that means it is likely that many of the artists / bands who have recorded covers of this song might not be notable, and if the artists are not notable, then I doubt that the covers are. So my question here is what sort of notability guidlelines are there for covers to be included in this (or any) song article? I looked at WP:NN and the related music notability pages, and searched the talk archive here, but do not see that this question has been addressed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If the cover is covered by reliable sources then it is probably worth a single-sentence mention. However, I don't think redlinking to many of these band/album articles is a good idea. Something probably should be mentioned at WP:NSONGS. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - one ref of 25 is to Billboard (one of the covers was #1 on a chart), but the rest of the refs are to Amazon.com (i.e the cover is on an album you can buy there). I do not write on albums or songs, so I was not sure what the consensus was. It just seemed to me that unless the band doing the cover was notable or the cover had reliable sources, it might not merit inclusion. Since there are lots of books and albums on Amazon that are not notable enough for articles here, I did not think that an Amazon ref was in and of itself enough to establish notability. Note that I do not doubt that these covers exist and also understand that there are notable bands out there who do not yet have articles here (so just being a redlink band is not the issue). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure. Ask the editor if there is another source such as Allmusic or Billboard that could be used instead. Covers that have received coverage in sources like these should probably remain, but others...I dunno... Anyone else have an opinion? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I will delete redlinked artists, single performances on a wet Wednesday in Wheatland, Wyoming, As any self-respecting editor I will also delete spamlinks (including Amazon, generally speaking), I haven't been so hard on unreferenced recordings because I have faith in my co-editors. I think real underlying problem with the "other recordings" bit is that they get turned into lists and which give more prominence than is appropriate - especially as it is generally fancruft to "big up" an artist! . It becomes even more ridiculous when the list of covers gets spun off into a different article. Might be better if all "other recordings" were in para form. IMO. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Award to songwriter/performer/song ?

Please help me sort out who the award is credited to at Talk:Grammy_Award_for_Record_of_the_Year#Person_or_song.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(Comment below moved to central location noted above)

Song of the Year is the simple one: it is about the song, and so the award goes to the songwriter(s) [who often, though not always, happen to be the performer and/or producer as well].
Record of the Year is more complex: it is about the recording, not the song, thereby being awarded to the artist and producer [who sometimes, though not always, happen to be also the songwriter], and as of late the engineer and/or mixer as well. Abrazame (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoü and I

To anyone who might be interested in piping in and helping reach a consensus. "You and I" has been nominated for deletion, so express if you support or oppose this nomination. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award template clutter

Please comment at Talk:Grammy_Award#Award_Templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Decade-End as a parallel to Billboard Year-End

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Billboard_Decade-End_as_a_parallel_to_Billboard_Year-End so that all discussion is in one place.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Angelia (song)

If anyone wants to mosey on over to this article to take a look at the chart I created for this song, please do and tell me how I did on my first attempt at adding one. There are more countries to add, but I am taking a break from that for right now but will be adding more in the future.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work! (And I love that song! Gotta dig out that CD!) Abrazame (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about article content - reception?

While reading the GA Tomorrow Never Knows I was surprised that there very little critical reception about the song. I was wondering what the suggested article body is for the project, so came here.... is there a reason why there's not a reception section? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Elliott Smith Vertical

I have nominated {{Elliott Smith Vertical}}, a non-standard navbox, for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Elliott Smith Vertical. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Release date vandalism

Hi all - just popped in here to let you know that I've spent a while reverting some non-obvious vandalism on song articles. The vandalism has been done since last December by a number of IPs on Eircom - I've identified 16 IP addresses so far; they've been used consecutively without overlap, and the edits bear all the signs of being done by one person with a dynamic IP address. Most of the vandalism consists of adding or changing song release dates in the infobox, often by adding spurious days of the month for older recordings where the information doesn't seem to be available. In some cases two or more changes have been made to dates, which provides further evidence of ill intent - see for instance this, this and this, all on the same article. None of the edits have edit summaries and no citations have ever been provided. Despite checking a number of the changes I haven't found one yet that stands scrutiny. The reverts I've done so far are here and here. I'm working my way backwards through the list and have got to March so far.

So it may be a good idea to carefully scrutinise any uncited changes made by apparent newbies to established dates in articles that are covered by this Project, especially if they originate from IP ranges 86.40.0.0 to 86.47.63.255.

Happy to answer any questions  —SMALLJIM  21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since posting the above, the vandalism has continued from 86.44.214.32 etc. I'm continuing to work backwards through the list.  —SMALLJIM  16:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Cover versions of songs

My question pertains specifically to a recent edit on a page I am working on, George Earth, but I'd like a clear understanding of the proper way to format similar items. This article is not about a song. As is documented in the article George Earth did produce an album (3 actually), for Cleopatra Records, two of these containing covers of Nine Inch Nails songs by various artists, and he did (as Candymachine) record one cover, "Mr. Self Destruct", on one of those albums. The original song, which he covered, does have its own article, as the NIN original song. The version on this tribute album though, like every other song on this tribute album, and the other tribute to NIN album that he produced with various other artists, and the Smashing Pumpkins tribute album that he produced as well, all contain cover versions of these artists' songs and not originals of the songs by their original artists. So. Today, there was an edit on the George Earth page that changed the existing text, which was not wikilinked, to a link to the original NIN song. Is that proper? I hadn't planned to do a separate page for the tribute album anytime soon, let alone a separate page for the cover version of the song (probably ever), but I think it's clear from the text that the song he covered is on a NIN tribute album, and is thus a NIN song...should this be linked to the original song's page, or no? Is there a smarter way to approach this than the one I did when I wrote the article?duff 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the link to the song is correct, WP does not have and shouldn't have separate articles for cover versions. A song is a song and all information about that song should be in one place - subject to WP criteria for article length etc. I think the solution to your concerns is a little rewrite to differentiate between the album and the song. Happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Music notes

How reliable is this (although I've been using this site)? I just came across the article "Fly Like A Bird" at GAN. The article states that Mariah's voice spans from --- to E5. But listening to the song, its higher than that (I can see A5, A6 per youtube). --Efe (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but, again, as above, we need to source with references what the top note is. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The sheet music is published by music publishers (eg EMI Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group). I'm not very knowledgable about music theory, but I would say that the sheet music is accurate as it has been published by the writers' publishers. However, I think the genres listed can be a bit off sometimes, as they have listed 1+1 (song) and Yoü and I as dance-pop, which they clearly are not. An RSN discussion is here, and there is also a draft proposal about these sources -- please weigh in here! Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Written (published) music is rarely that accurate, it rarely gives all the grace notes, never the intonation, often taken from a different recording, simplified because the printed page just doesn't allow for the detail that a recording can, sometimes just poorly done. A bit like a printed book, it can you give the words spoken, but it can't tell you, except in broad brush strokes, how it was said. For example, you do not have a clue exactly how I am reading my own words back to myself here! That said, I think we should pay attention to the first part of WP:Verifiability, which read, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That said, I wouldn't add something which I thought was inaccurate irrespective of how well I could source it. As for "genres listed..." if I stay quiet will they please go away? LOL. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am sort of aware of that stuff, but I think Musicnotes should not prevail over other sources? ==Efe (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lorne Greene version?

There is missing a Lorne Greene version of this song in article. Biblija11 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Chord progression

This refers to the very common misinterpretation of what a chord progression is. How should we write it on articles?

  • This: "...giving it a circular progression through all the seven diatonic chords of I–IV–VIIo–III–VI–II–V–I."
  • Or this: "The verses follow in the chord progression of Cm–A♭–Cm and the chorus uses an A♭–E♭–Fm–D♭ progression."

--Efe (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, firstly a great thanks to anybody who considers writing about the song - there are too many articles about the chart placings with nothing about the song - could be a dishpan for all the casual reader might ascertain! As everything has to be sourced, I would say use the same format (re-written of course) as in the source. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I think "Hey Ya!" is one of the good examples here. While its sort of original research (as did 90% of song articles, at least on the part is which the song's structure is analyzed), as did other articles which uses the style of writing like used in item number two. Also, I really thought its sort of wrong because the term chord progression doesn't refer to the chords (as in guitar chords). That Cm–A♭–Cm, look in the music sheet. The "notation" is for the readers' guide how to play the song using the guitar. --Efe (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys. Maybe you'd like to see this little discussion about chord progression. I would to note that there are many GAs having that kind of writing / info / interpretation. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Songs by producer

Hi, I note Category:Songs by producer appears to be a WP backwater that needs some considerable expansion, but before that, wp:songs really could do with guidance notes. I have a number of discussion points :-

  1. That the category should be broken down into genre because most producers work primarily in a specific genre. My own query with this is where would you put somebody like, say, George Martin, who with the Beatles crossed over into most genres?
  2. That self-produced songs are an irrelevance - I made my own breakfast this morning but that doesn’t make me a chef (I have a ruder analogy, but you can work that out for yourself). Therefore, unless an artist is also producing for another artist these should be deleted.
  3. That redirects shouldn’t be categorised by producer because most songs are recorded by more than one artist it does suggest that the producer produced ALL versions.
  4. It is unnecessary to have a category with a single entry as all it does is create a circular route to what is or should be in the article. I’d like to roll this out to other categories within wp:songs, but that’s another issue.

Any comments? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments Thanks, Rich for involving me, as I have added several categories to this scheme. In my mind, it should mostly mirror Category:Albums by producer and to that end, I don't think it would be wise to split it up by genre (and, of course, what do you do with, e.g. Glen Ballard?) As far as self-produced songs, then the same criteria should be applied for albums. If an artist is not known for producing and simply happened to make a demo and so "produced" it, then it's probably not wise to have that category. This is a case-by-case thing. Your point about redirects is a good one that does not apply to albums--several recordings of a song can be released without having been produced by the same person. It's not clear to me what the best option is here... Finally, regarding single-member categories, since those would be deleted for albums, they should be deleted here as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I had made a post over at Albums to tell them about my post as it is self-evident that the two categories need to be treated in tandem. I should have made that clear. Let's see if anybody responds before I make any more comments. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Nobody else seems to be interested in this. Perhaps you could point me in right direction for albums by producer guidelines and we can see if we can adopt these as they stand. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh well I don't know how those standards were arrived at--all I can say for certain is that if the producer is a redlink, then the category would be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I want to make Rihanna's "S&M" an A class article, which I am pretty sure that it is at already, and was wondering how I go about nominating it? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Non-free use rationale album

At Template_talk:Non-free_use_rationale_album#Here_We_Go_Again_.28Ray_Charles_song.29_alternate_cover_art, I need some coding assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Moves Like Jagger suggestion

Because of the scenes where the female dancers in Moves Like Jagger by Maroon5 show nipslips (wardrobe malfunctions), then shouldn't it be mentioned on it's page? And that VEVO or Youtube doesn't know it?

174.31.153.173 (talk)Concerned —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

It seems to me that the prominent use of the bassoon was NOT coincidence. The bassoon is frequently referred toas "the CLOWN of the orchestra".

Lowell Inhorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.148.12 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Prince proposal

Please add your opinion. I Help, When I Can.[12] 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting opinion

I'm currently working on improving an article, "I Can Only Imagine", to GA or FA status. Currently, the only major problem with the article is the music video portion. I was wondering whether writing a synopsis (similar to what is done on FA-class movie articles) of the video would be a breach of GA/FA criteria, as I have no sources to back up the video's plot. It is highly unlikely I could find a news article or web article describing the video. Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, a little too much WP:DUE weight is currently being given to the video, as it is not mentioned in the article other than by it's description. If you can find a review of the song that comments in some way on the video, that would be good. Expanding on the plot of the video, a little over what may be present in a review, is considered okay, providing that the description is not interpretive. HTH, Uniplex (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that seems fair - if I am unable to find an sources for it, does that disqualify it from GA/FA criteria, which requires comprehensive coverage? Toa Nidhiki05 13:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What Happens Tomorrow (Duran Duran)

Hi folks,

I'm confused about the numbering of Duran Duran's singles at this point. If 'What Happens Tomorrow' is the 33rd, and 'Sunrise' is the 31st, what's the 32nd?

With all good wishes

Andy Campbell

asc@kgv.ac.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.85.50 (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments

Suggested merge could use some input. Please read and comment if you have an opinion on the subject. Thanks! 173.48.124.77 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reward board#Various song/album/artist articles to GA

Just posting this for anyone who may be interested in it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cover Versions

How about something for the guideline along these lines:

Cover versions

Cover versions are rarely a significant aspect of the overall topic of a song, so seldom warrant inclusion in a song's article (few featured song articles include any mention of cover versions).

Inclusion may be warranted if a cover version has made the top 10 on a national, unspecialized singles chart (e.g. "With a Little Help from My Friends", "I Will Always Love You", "Without You"), or is the subject of sourced critical acclaim (insert good example here).

Statements such as "the song has been recorded by more than 20 other artists" must be reliably sourced.

It's basically just saying where things seem to be at the moment (not so sure about "top 10", but it seemed a reasonable number to start the discussion). What do folks think? Uniplex (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The level of notability should be as mentioned in WP:SONGS. I am not sure what happens to the multitude of lists of "other recordings" that proliferate - especially in the eras when it really was the song that counted and not the performer! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
WP's stock answer in these situations is "follow the sources", so I guess citing from a book like They don't write Songs like these any more: 50 songs from the golden age of song writing would apply. As for a cover version of a modern song, do you mean that it should be mentioned only if it would have qualified for it's own article had it not been a cover version? Or only if it qualifies and does have it's own article? A case in point is Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds: a number of readers/editors feel that Elton's cover "muddies" the page: perhaps it would be better in it's own article? Uniplex (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
WP is an encyclopedia, not a discography, not a list of greatest hits and it certainly shouldn't be home to WP:FANCRUFT. An article about a song should have ALL the information on one page UNLESS size dictates otherwise. Fans never like this this dictum, whether it be Beatles -v- John, Stevie Wonder -v- Red Hot Chilli Peppers and host of other articles. Any problems relate to the presentation of the article which is easy to sort out with consent - i.e. edit the Elton bit of Lucy, or add to the Beatles bit (with references!). If ever I see separate articles for the same song I merge/redirect with extreme prejudice. It's as simple as day, an article about a song is an article about a song, not about an individual recording (irrespective of notability). No exceptions. Also, wouldn't happen in respect of any non-musical article. You just got me up on my high horse! LOL. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the main thing is that WP:DUE weight should be applied; the trouble is that most sources focus on just one performance of a song, so this can be difficult to determine. Perhaps you have a suggestion for some words for the guideline? Uniplex (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The guideline is already at WP:COMMONSENSE. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone approaches song articles from a pop music perspective. For example, a song becomes a jazz standard because it has been performed and/or recorded by many musicians. For less commercial music that may never appear on a record chart, this is part of its notability. -Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think if a song has become a 'standard' then there will be secondary sources that say this and there should be no temptation to create a "Cover versions" section. So per Richhoncho's suggestion:
"Cover versions"

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (not a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

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

General statements such as "the song has been recorded by more than 20 artists" must be reliably sourced.

Uniplex (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but I have changed couple of words. Hope you don't mind. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
No probs, pasted this in as it doesn't seem to be contentious. Uniplex (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Songs from The Dark Side of the Moon

Is it really useful or necessary to have the complete DSotM album track listing in the infobox of every song from this album? After all, this tracklisting is available at the bottom of the articles in the DSotM navigation template. Regards. 81.83.139.181 (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hangover (Taio Cruz song)#Background

I dont't think Hangover (Taio Cruz song)#Background has encyclopedic style. It rather looks like from a newspaper. Vinne2 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

US CHARTS

it was in europe everwhere number 1. number 5 in the uk. and it was not eaven in us top 100 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.240.146 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What song would that be, then? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Abundance of track listings

I love the {{track listing}} template, don't get me wrong, but I think it is way overused. There needs to be some guidelines lied down for track listing templates in song articles, and not just thrown in to "decorate" the article, or act as a fan discography page for every release. I edit a lot of U2 articles, so I've included some of those as examples. Here are some points that I think should be addressed.

  • No need for track listings for releases with only one track – Track times can be listed in the infobox and the single-track release can be mentioned in the prose. Track listings should not be used to "decorate" articles, and it's pretty unappealing when an article has an entire section just for a track listing for a release with one song. There can be exceptions, however, if a song has a single-track release and the version is significantly different from the original and there's another release in the section to begin with (see Zooropa (song)).
  • No need for a track listing for EVERY SINGLE release – Wikipedia is not a discography site. When track listings between different releases only differ slightly, they don't need to be listed separately. For example, if a single release includes songs W, X, Y, and Z, but some version omit song Z, that can be stated in the prose or through a footnote instead of listing them totally separate (see All I Want Is You (song)). If there are several commercial releases and there was additionally a promo pressed in 20 copies (as opposed to 20,000), for example, it doesn't need its own template separate from the rest. It could be mentioned in the prose, but doesn't need to have its own template (see City of Blinding Lights). Also, digital releases can come in all different varieties, especially when sold by different websites. Those don't need to be mentioned along with the tons of physical releases.
  • Excessive templates should be collapsed – It's pretty simple. When the track listings take up about half of the article on your screen, they should be collapsed for "tidiness" (see Discothèque (song)).
  • Citations! – Just like anything else in an article, track listings should be cited in the headline parameter. This way the reader knows where the tracks and respective times came from. The citation can be the release itself, and {{cite music release notes}} is perfect for this.

–Dream out loud (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of sheet musics as reference

I am not sure if what I have added here was correct. I just that using sheet music as reference could be problematic at times, especially when it is used to support statements such as progression and octaves. Isn't it personal interpretation of the content(s) of the primary source itself? --Efe (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have added the tag, it is referenced, think of it as a translation from one language (music) to another (english), rephrased because of copyright. I wish more song articles actually had something about the music rather than the standard discography entry masquerading as a song article. IMO. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation.

The following has recently been added to WP:Albums. It seems logical that an amended version should be adopted for songs. Any comments?

An album may be categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, composer, record-label, etc., only if these are defining characteristics of the album (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness).
  • If an album is defined by a particular characteristic, then it is likely that the object of the characteristic (the performer, producer, etc.) will be notable in that capacity and qualify (per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MUSIC) for it's own Wikipedia article: if such an article does not exist, then the characteristic is probably not defining.
  • Each defining characteristic of an album usually qualifies its article for precisely one categorization, named as the defining characteristic (e.g. 'albums produced by X'). Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic, the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members.[1] So, for example, if Y is a member of an album's production team X, categorization may not be as 'albums produced by Y'; 'albums produced by X' might however, be included as a sub-category of 'albums produced by Y', or the album might be categorized directly as 'Y' (perhaps in addition to 'albums produced by X').
  • Characteristics that commonly define one class of album may not define another class of album. E.g. 'conducted-by' commonly defines classical-music albums but rarely, if ever, defines rock-music albums. 'Produced-by' sometimes defines pop- and rock-music albums, but rarely defines classical-music albums. Large record-label companies don't often qualify as a defining characteristic of an album; small, specialized record-labels however, may do.
  • If the above seems to disallow grouping articles as you think they should be, consider using an alternative mechanism such as a list-article (see WP:CLN).

--Richhoncho (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems sensible to follow the path of least surprises and keep albums and songs aligned; may be as simple as search and replace album to song (or perhaps, better still, push it up to WP:WPMU). Uniplex (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Pasted in text based on the latest version at WP:ALBUM. Uniplex (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Article: Somebody Loves Me

The article "Somebody Loves Me" is about a song, but there is a 1952 movie by that name as well. See www.imdb.com/title/tt0045171 It seems to me that there needs to be a disambiguation page, or the problem resolved in some other way. Since the movie was a musical, it is likely that the song is in the movie. Lriley47 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No Regrets (Dappy Song)

Would anyone mind having a look/(edit;-) it appears to have been written either by one of his promoters or a heavily unbiased fan e.g. "he then proceeds with rhymes that come thick and fast backed with an athemic chorus laced with the kind of meaning that a lot of people will be able to relate to." and the fact that the "critical reception" section is based on one (favourable) review? Triboelectricity (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Song / single

As a disambiguation, shouldn't many articles be actually "song title (single)" rather than "song title (song)" when the article is about a single? In the case of say, "We Wish You a Merry Christmas", certainly that's about a song, but where an article talks about the artcover for a single and the B-side etc, we're talking about a single. Of course when that song becomes covered by many artists, I would think that it reverts back to (song), but in many cases the article will just be about a single by a particular artist. Any thoughts?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation 'song' separates from other articles. It is the song which is notable, even though it is a single which might make it notable. Song it is and song it should stay. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Gloomy Sunday

Recently several Wikipedian contributers and I have been working on improving the article about the song Gloomy Sunday. Although we've agreed that the article is not up to standard for a GA Nomination, we've been thinking that the article could at least be of high enough quality for a B-Class rating (it is currently rated C-Class). This rating may encourage further work on the article, and the feedback given on the subsequent denile/acceptance of the rating would certainly be valuable to us in working out the course of the articles future development. As it is bad form for someone who's heavily contributed to an article to rate it, would it be possible for someone from this WikieProject to review and rank it? Any feedback about the article on the songs Discussion Page or on my talkpage would also be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Trollyboy (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class

Where would I go if I wanted to get an A-Class assessment review for Bidi Bidi Bom Bom? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys should make pages on every song.

--GH200 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC) You guys should make pages on every song that you know of and can see on any album on wikipedia. Tell what they're about and what year they were made the artist/writers inspiration. You need to do a page on every song buy every artist you can think that can be ound n wikipedia. It only makes since because someone will be looking for information on a song that might not be that famous but they go to wikipedia to find more info about it. That's what we're here for.--GH200 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually no ,wikipedia is not a directory of all information, but only an encyclopedia of notable topics. Items that are not themselves notable do not get a page. See WP:MUSIC for very specific standards for when a song or album deserves a pages. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Page location discussion

I have opened an WP:RFC at Talk:T.H.E._(The_Hardest_Ever)#Page_locations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month cand

One or more articles relating to this project have been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving these articles or voting for next months collaboration are encouraged to participate here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

CfD Nomination: Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens

As this nomination may affect of other categories in the scheme I thought a notice of the CfD would be helpful. CfD:Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

James Blake's cover of "A Case of You."

Hi. Can someone take a look at A Case of You? Over the last few days there has been an enormous amount of information added about James Blake's recent cover—information I think is given undue weight on this page. (Perhaps the information more appropriately belongs on James Blake's page?) I tried to undo the info and was reverted almost immediately. Thanks. PaintedCarpet (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Used to Be (Featuring Stevie Wonder)

I would like some help with this one please, it would be nice if someone could add this picture http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&sa=N&rls=en&channel=suggest&tbm=isch&tbnid=-o9nQAwukgQC5M:&imgrefurl=http://www.45cat.com/biglabel/motown/6&docid=_eiWphDVG-thcM&imgurl=http://images.45cat.com/used-to-be-charlene-and-stevie-wonder-motown.jpg&w=766&h=763&ei=H_nwTvCAJMPi0QG35cGxAg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=300&sig=112931244308411880137&page=4&tbnh=162&tbnw=172&start=68&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:68&tx=116&ty=43&biw=1440&bih=747

I would like a picture, information is covered and I want to add more to this page.....I feel this song does deserve its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenCarpenterFan (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the protocol for lyrics?

Are there any guidelines for posting song lyrics on song pages that already exist and that are clearly in the public domain? It seems like an obvious thing to do yet I don't see lyrics listed for every song in PD. Jomangor (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Another Infobox template

Hi there. This may well be the wrong place to mention this in which case many apologies, but I created (largely based on Infobox single and Infobox song) a template infobox called {{Template:Infobox Tin Pan Alley}} which I've used on compositions by Scott Joplin in the early years of the 20th Century. I created it because none of the infoboxes which I could find had quite the right options (second composer, arranger, sheet music cover, publishing date and sound file). Although it seems to work I may well have not formatted the code in exactly the correct manner. I hope others may find it useful, perhaps for songs or single compositions from the same era which were published as sheet music first, and only later found fame through amateur or professional performance. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ging gang goolie, origin (Robert Baden-Powell) a myth? Yes, presumably so!

Do join the discussion on this and other possible myths re "Ging gang goolie" at

Talk:Ging_Gang_Goolie Brommabo (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Chants

Are chants covered by this wikiproject? I notice that your banner is located on Talk:Chant, but an editor who edits song articles said that chants do not count as songs. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that the project tag should be on the Chant page, but I note that many actual chants are tagged as WPSongs. They're songs, aren't they? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I never said chants aren't songs, but I don't see how chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A" can be considered a song. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 USCOTM - The Star-Spangled Banner

Hello, WikiProject Songs/Archive 8! The Star-Spangled Banner has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month article for January 2012 and we are looking for editors to help improve the article. You were identified as an editor or WikiProject with an interest in the article and we thought you might be interested in helping out. Thanks!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Graffiti My Soul

Hi. Could someone familiar with assessing song articles please spend a couple of minutes reassessing this bot-assessed stub? Thanks very much. -- Trevj (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

first American airplay of The Safety Dance by Men w/o Hats

I hope someone can correct me, but I recall dancing to this right around the fall of 1982 with my best friend. The first time we heard it, we went crazy and it still has the same kick to it now. Since I've read in Wikipedia that it didn't really hit the American charts until 83, I'm curious to know the first airdate, if possible. It would really help with my writing!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.15.227 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The song Twilight by Cover Drive

In terms of this song's genre, synthpop can certainly be justified. The R+B tag should refer to the Contemporary R+B page, and there isn't anything to suggest that this song can be categorised as hip hop.

Kingcrasher (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Chrissy H

We Belong Together (Randy Newman song)

I just created an article for last years Academy Award for Best Original Song winner, "We Belong Together". Since most Disney songs are covered in several foreign languages, I am calling for assistance in filling in the article. My current version also needs some citations. I will try to find as many as I can. Help would be appreciated. I have added all the nominations that I could find from other articles on wikipedia. It may have been nominated for awards that don't have WP articles. Help filling that in would be appreciated. I figure since this is an Oscar winner, it is a somewhat high priority article for this project. Please come help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking "Warm Kitty", the song, to "Big Bang Theory", the television show

I'd like to see the above happen. The episodes that include this song are my favorites of BBT. It's also interesting that the title is referred to differently on the show than the actual title. It's a fun thing for me and one reason that I'm taking the time to write this is that I met my son's girlfriend this evening and it is her favorite show too, and she knows the lyrics. I think a lot of people would like to see this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.229.177 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 February 2012‎

Writing a Discography

I've been trying to write Discographies for a project in school and have found these pages super helpful! However most discographies call for a record of the place the songs were recorded/produced. I've been trying to find this information and have not been able to. Any suggestions? 1Krystal.Stevens (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

UK top 10 singles lists

Can I get some assistance with standardising and expanding the Lists of UK top 10 singles series of articles. The model for this should be the 2011 or 2003 lists, but obviously with more text, images and references. Thanks. 03md 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Song ratings"?

Has there ever been consideration for a template of "Song ratings" or "Single ratings" in the same style as Template:Album ratings? The basic idea is that rather than include something like this, editors could include a scoring system as seen on album pages that neatly summarizes critical reception.-RDavi404 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I started a template for "Song ratings." See: Template:Song_ratings. Please help if you see anything wrong. Thanks! -RDavi404 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not just use the albums ratings template? I don't see any difference between the two in appearance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That is basically what I did. I copied and then modified the Album Ratings template for individual songs. I assumed that the Album Ratings template would have guidelines and suggestions that would only apply to album articles so figured that a separate template would be necessary for individual songs. Tweak as necessary.--RDavi404 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
"this song sucks." - eo (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Musicnotes.com again

I have removed some facts attributed to sheet music as published at www.musicnotes.com. Here are my recent removals:

These bits all had some kind of problem with the worst offender being "Causing a Commotion" which cited a non-existent source. Other bits get the key wrong, the chord progression wrong, or the tempo wrong. Many of these assert that the sheet music defines the vocal range as heard on the recorded song, the vocal range as performed by the artist.

I looked for past discussions about Musicnotes.com and found several useful ones. The most explicit was Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Musicnotes.com at which it was decided that Musicnotes.com could not be linked with a URL because it is a pay site, and that it is not a reliable source for the key or tempo or vocal range of the song as recorded by the artist. The discussion determined that the published sheet music can be used as a reference just like a published book can be, but only for facts about the sheet music, not about the song as recorded and widely heard.

In the face of this mainly negative finding, there is an incomplete proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Using sheet music sources which wishes to establish Musicnotes.com and Sheetmusicplus.com as reliable sources, including the URLs. No consensus has been reached (yet) regarding the full proposal. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to notice. I have one primary question at the moment, "are you objecting to the use of musicnotes etc or sheet music?" Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't deny that MN is not a reliable source (they only sell sheet music, which are the reliable sources in this case). The problem is that Binks has started to remove text he believes it was created or falsified by Legolas. Binks is playing to be a lawyer who is collecting all these evidence to the upcoming trial, and looking for a judge to sent him to prision—this is the best way I can explain it. It is OK that Binks is concerned about that some information may be incorrect, but as he said on his talkpage: "it does not state plainly that 'The song has a basic sequence of Dm7–Em7–F–Dm7–Em7–F as its chord progression.' To me, it looks the chord progression is Am7–Bm7–Cmaj7," well, then change it to Am7–Bm7–Cmaj7 instead of delete 675Kb of information. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, so hateful yet so wrongheaded. All I wish to do is fix the problems that Legolas2186 created in his push to expand articles to GA. That's it, man. No lawyer activism or politicking here. Perhaps it would be best if you lay out and let calmer voices discuss the basic issue of sheet music references and Musicnotes.com references. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Simpe facts... the correct place to discuss this is again RSN or WP:Using sheet music sources. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that the Songs Project would get additional Song-specific editors to comment. This location is not wrong, or less "correct". It is within Project scope, certainly. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Richhoncho, I am against having a URL to Musicnotes.com anywhere on normal song articles. I am against having a published sheet music cite say things about the recording or the artist. The sheet music cite should only state facts about the sheet music. I am also against having mistakes about the key or chord progression, of course, and I am against stretching the sheet music cite to say that, for instance, a printed instruction of the song having a "moderate" tempo is exactly such-and-such bpm. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK Guys, I think that's enough on this page. It was right and proper that the matter was noted here, however, it does look suspiciously like a canvas for votes which shouldn't have happened. I will save my comments for the relevant page. Again, thanks for bringing to the attention of this page. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Canvass for votes? I expected that bringing the issue here I would find editors friendly to the general idea of a Musicnotes URL even though I was not. That's some strange kind of canvassing, asking for opposition votes. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Impending FAR notice; help requested

A Featured Article that falls under the scope of this WikiProject has been found to have significant issues with verification failure and plagiarism:

Attention from any interested editors would be welcome. Due to the high rate of issues found so far, every single reference is going to need to be checked and fixed, where problems are found. Help from the primary editor (User:Legolas2186) doesn't seem to be forthcoming, since he disappeared when issues were raised.

The Featured Article Review process may be started soon for this. If no-one is able to help, it will likely lose FA status. --Laser brain (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish to add links to the original discussion and the workpage:
Ongoing work on other articles should be brought to the second linked page. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rubiscous (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Guideline WP:SONGCOVER is a high bar

I noticed that WP:SONGCOVER appears to tell us that covers of songs should not be mentioned in a song article unless:

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

Here's the most recent (2011) discussion which resulted in the guideline we now have: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_8#Cover_Versions. Here's an earlier discussion from 2009: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions.

The guideline as written in 2011 would have us delete lists of song covers that are not notable by themselves, such as this deletion of mine at "Walk Like an Egyptian", this deletion of mine at "You're the One That I Want", and this deletion of mine at "I Shot the Sheriff". Are such deletions good for the encyclopedia? Are they adhering properly to the guideline as written? Should the guideline be made more inclusive? Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The notability requirement for WP:NSONGS is intended to cover the creation of independent articles, and this guideline is basically guiding us to create subsections for cover versions when the song passes WP:NSONGS, and not to do so when the subject does not. I don't believe it is intended to discourage list-style entries of covers by notable groups.—Kww(talk) 01:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I think a list is fine as long as the versions are cited. Certainly recorded versions are fine, but artists singing it live in concert or on a one-off TV appearance are not, unless the appearance itself is notable. I notice with "You're the One That I Want" you took off a hit version of it (and was cited) however.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been waiting to see how everybody responded to this. I think there should be some kind of limitation to the number of "other recorded versons" there are of a song, but at the same time it is encyclopedic to list some of the more notable recorded versions. What I do if I see a long list of covers is rename the subsection to other notable recordings and trim down, leaving anything referenced, removing any red links, I usually finish up making a judgement call on unreferenced entries. No such list is every complete, so trying to list every performance is not very satisfactory. I think my attitude comes under WP:COMMONSENSE (I would, wouldn't I? LOL). We certainly don't want to list every X-Factor performance of Feelin' Good. Any lessening of the strength of the guidelines along those lines I would support providing we consider the underlying problem that the lessening the strength would be used by every "my-band-is-very-notable" editor around the world to justify the addition of anything. It's bad enough the "separate article" of the guideline is thought not to be applicable for all versions of the same song! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Tuzapicabit, I restored the cited 1978 parody version from 1978. Thanks for pointing that out. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I've run into a categorization problem...

And it concerns an issue I brought up on this talk page nearly two years ago. Naturally, that thread received no response and was eventually archived.

Last night, after creating the article "Let It Go!", I also had to create the corresponding song category for the artist, Category:F.T. Island songs. This is where the issue comes up. "Let It Go!" is a song sung in Japanese. The band is South Korean. I currently have Category:F.T. Island songs categorized under Category:South Korean songs, which, to me, is confusing and misleading, as it's unclear whether the artist is South Korean or the song is South Korean (think traditional songs). In other cases, like Category:Spanish songs, could cause further confusion as it may also lead readers to believe the song is sung in Spanish (granted, most are, but that doesn't stop Spanish people from singing in a different language. Enrique Iglesias, anyone?). That was one of my points at the CFD when I nominated the subcategories of Category:Albums by artist nationality.

I'd like to rename the song categories in the same manner, but because some songs do fit perfectly under Foo songs (Afghan National Anthem is an example of where it's accurately categorized under Category:Afghan songs), the issue is a bit more complex than the albums categories. So, I did list three options in the link to the archive in my first sentence, I'd like to get the ball rolling and actually have something done this time around. I hope to hear what the community thinks of this issue and proposals. — ξxplicit 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuando Me Enamoro - Enrique Iglesias

This song called A Man Without Love (Quando M'Innamoro)was actually composed by D. Pace,Mario Panzeri and Roberto Livraghi and made famous by Engelbert Humperdinck. In the Wikipedia Article it states that Enrique Iglesias wrote Cuando Me Enamoro. Is any of the family of the original song writers getting royalties. I can't believe that in this day and age singers are singing music and claiming that they wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.141.202 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

According to ASCAP, QUANDO M INNAMORO and CUANDO ME ENAMORO are two different songs and the writers are correct as you have noted above. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I Don't Want this Night to End

This article claims that the song is in F Lydian mode (which means that the tonal center is F while having an A minor scale). I disagree. This song is in A minor, and predominantly features A minor, C major (the relative major), and G major (the dominant of C) chords. The main source of the argument that F is the key is that the song ends on an F major chord. Simply put, in pop music, the last chord does not determine the key of the song. The key of the song is based on what chords the song revolves around. As stated before, these are chords characteristic of the A minor key. Furthermore, it is commonplace for pop songs to end on the VI chord. This creates an incomplete feeling, one that goes along with the music video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmactweed (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. I have added a fact tag to the statement on the simple grounds that it fails WP:V - i.e. there is no third party reference for the statement it is F in the Lydian mode. My knowledge of modes is too weak to say who is right! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Song's Lyrics

I suggest every page about a song should have a lyrics section. Of course some songs do not have words, there will be exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.58.175 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a policy against that: WP:NOTLYRICS. — ξxplicit 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did Hendrix play Watchtower in one direction on the guiter , rather than up and down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldog1 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Writer/Producer for iTunes videos

Once a song is posted on iTunes, should I be able to figure out its writer. I am having some trouble filling in the infobox for "Cat Daddy".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, if something gets 14,000 downloads in a week on iTunes, does that mean it charted somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

"Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)"'s WP:FAC review is getting long in the tooth and is right on the borderline. Come help make sure the right decision is made.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ayy Ladies

Ayy Ladies should be added. It is Travis Porter's most successful song to-date, it has a music video, and it is widely popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.12.50 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

PROD

The article Addicted (Prince Royce song) has been proposed for deletion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have also proposed Incondicional for deletion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With A Girl Like You by The Troggs

Would be nice to add personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtPepper (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Overcome (Alexandra Burke album) booklet

Does anyone have it so they can tell me what the credits and personnel are for "The Silence (song)" please? Aaron • You Da One 16:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated 4 Minutes (Madonna song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Song uses

What are sources for researching the use of a song in movies, tv shows and commercials?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No Can Do

Can anyone upload a screenshot of the music video for the Sugababes song No Can Do? Till 06:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Santa Baby

Hi, can i get your opinion on renaming 2 of these to clean up the names and make it less awkward:

To this:

Thanks Jenova20 09:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

They all seem fine to me. Maybe just create a disambiguation page at Santa Baby (disambiguation) and add a hat note to Santa Baby.--StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
There already appears to be a hatnote on Santa Baby. Did you mean modify it?--Rockfang (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if and after a disambiguation page is created. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we need a disambiguation page for just 2 articles that could be named better/more appropriately? Thanks Jenova20 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The disambiguation page would list the 4 articles above. And the song is the primary topic. There's no other Santa Baby 2, so why would that need to be disambiguated? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I just thought it seemed neater that's all. Especially since there's Santa Baby (film) already. Thanks Jenova20 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Push the Button (Sugababes song)

Hello all. Push the Button (Sugababes song) is currently a featured article candidate; it was re-nominated as the previous archive was closed early due to the lack of feedback. I am asking anybody who is interested to consider commenting on the current archive as to whether it meets the featured article criteria. Thanks. Till I Go Home talk 15:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Single certification

Most discography pages list only certification for singles, but is there any point in listing certification for singles any more? Most singles in the US are no longer properly certified, and when they are, they are often so far behind sales that it is meaningless, if not downright misleading. Gotye's "Somebody That I Used to Know" has sold over 5 million, but only 1x platinum certified, Kelly Clarkson's "Stronger" has sold over 3 million, but no certification at all (neither are her songs "Mr Know It All", "My Life Would Suck Without You" and "Already Gone", all of which have sold either 1 or 2 million). Much better to give sales where known rather than bothering with certification. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is although sales can go in a separate column. The important thing about certifications is they only happen when labels pay the RIAA to check, so Gotye's label is possibly waiting for sales to peak. No clue why Clarkson's label hasn't certified the singles, though. Toa Nidhiki05 14:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It isn't just Kelly Clarkson, you see it everywhere. For example no Usher song has been certified since 2009 even though he had multi-million selling hits with "OMG" and "DJ Got Us Fallin' in Love" in 2010, and no Pink song since 2006 even though some of her biggest hits came later. It seems like the labels no longer bother to certify singles for some artists. It's sometimes hard to stick another column for single sales because for some artists the singles table can get quite crowded. Hzh (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Wanted Dead or Alive"

I have done some research and found a few more facts that I believe will help this article improve. What are some areas that we could work on? (Bhickman02 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC))

Lady Godiva

Should Lady Godiva (song) and Lady Godiva (Alex Day song) be merged? User:Sakimonk doesn't think so. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge. No doubt. That's what WP:NSONGS says "MOST SONGS," not most recordings, not most versions, or any other variant. WP:SONGCOVER confirms this. There is also a precedent that different versions do not get separate articles, and here's a short list of those I have seen over just a couple days where there are two or more notable versions of the same song on the same page: (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, A Groovy Kind of Love, After Midnight (song), All Along the Watchtower, Baby, Please Don't Go, Because the Night, Blue (Bill Mack song), Blue Suede Shoes, Boom Boom (John Lee Hooker song), Can't Help Falling in Love, Dancing Queen, Don't Cry for Me Argentina, Downtown (Petula Clark song), Eloise (Paul Ryan song), Emotion (Samantha Sang song), Feeling Good, Fever (Little Willie John song), Fire (Bruce Springsteen song), Freedom! '90, Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight), Got to Give It Up, Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song), Harlem Shuffle, Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder song), Hound Dog (song), Hurt (Johnny Cash song), I Heard It Through the Grapevine, I Want Candy, I Want Your Love (Chic song), I Want Your Love (Transvision Vamp song), I Was Born This Way, I Wonder (1944 song), If I Thought You'd Ever Change Your Mind, If Not for You, If You Asked Me To, I'll Be There (The Jackson 5 song), I'll Be Your Baby Tonight, Invisible (Jaded Era song), Iris (Goo Goo Dolls song), It's Raining Men, Jesus Is Just Alright (song), Lady Marmalade, Let's Spend the Night Together, Light My Fire, Little Red Rooster, Love Don't Live Here Anymore, Mamma Mia (song), Me and Mrs. Jones, More, More, More, Mr. Tambourine Man, Not Fade Away (song), Oh, Boy! (song), One of Us (ABBA song), Perfect Day (Lou Reed song), Roll Over Beethoven, Shake, Rattle and Roll, Shame, Shame, Shame (Shirley & Company song), She's Like the Wind, Slow Hand, Somethin' Stupid, Spirit in the Sky, Step by Step (Annie Lennox song), Super Trouper (song), Sway (song), Take a Chance on Me, The First Cut Is the Deepest, The House of the Rising Sun, The Loco-Motion, Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To), These Boots Are Made for Walkin', Tumbling Dice, Venus (Shocking Blue song), War (Edwin Starr song), When Will I Be Loved (song), White Lines (Don't Don't Do It), Wild Thing (Chip Taylor song), Paint It, Black, You Can't Hurry Love,You Keep Me Hangin' On. Although some have been merged, many have NEVER had separate articles. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree and brought this up to the editor. Ignored my first attempt to discuss on the song's talk page, though. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been merged by now. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Parodies of My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean

This is being considered for deletion. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Parodies of My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 21:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Single question

I'm working on an album article but I've run into an issue as what to define one of its songs as - one of the songs from the album, "American Dream", has a radio adds date to the Christian Rock radio format, and adds dates are normally a confirmation of a song being a single. However, the record label the band is on has released press releases which say there were only three singles from the album ("If We Are the Body", "Who Am I", "Voice of Truth"), and "American Dream" is not one of them. Does this make it a promotional single or is it still a legitimate single release? Toa Nidhiki05 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

St. Jimmy

There is an RfC going on at Talk:St. Jimmy concerning notability of b-sides and songs that were covered by notable artists. Please comment. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Supermassive Black Hole"

The usage of Supermassive Black Hole is under discussion, see Talk:Supermassive Black Hole (song) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit of help from the Wikiproject.

I nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis/archive2 over a month ago and it hasn't had many comments from reviewers and editors. One of the reviewers hasn't been online for over a week, and another hasn't responded to some comments I have replied. I was advised to leave a note on the list's wikiproject's asking for anyone who may have some time to spare to review the list and leave comments. A vote on whether or not you feel the article is worthy of FL status would also be appreciated so that the FLC can make some progress. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 23:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos has been listed for deletion, if anybody want to comment... Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing My Baby at FAC

Just a note that I've nominated "Missing My Baby" at FAC and would like my fellow members to provide a comment on its nomination. Best, Jonatalk to me 14:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just fixed a couple of dead links to Chartstats, among other things, in this edit:

  • Please review this change as it is comfortably outside my normal areas of editing.
  • It looks as if Chartstats.com has become Chartarchive.org with changed database ids. This might mean that a lot of song articles have dead links which will be awkward to update. Please can someone (not me I'm afraid) check this?

Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Songs that were remixed for their single release

Right I have a question about Spectrum (song) by Florence and the Machine. The album version is called "Spectrum" and the song was released as the fourth single from Ceremonials. However the song was remixed by Calvin Harris, and the remixed version titled "Spectrum (Say My Name)" was the one that was serviced to radio and released commercially. It is the one that appears on all the charts. Its my view that introduction should explain this and that everything about the song (the infobox etc.) should refer to the remix as this is the commercial single. I also think the page should be located at Spectrum (Say My Name). I'm in the middle of expanding/restructuring in a sandbox but it'd be usedful to see what people think? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

From what you say I think you already have the solution. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My Kazakhstan (song)

My Kazakhstan (song) has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:My Kazakhstan (song) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The name Johnny is spelled incorrectly in the page; the original song lyrics shows it as Johnnie and someone should fix this as I don't know how and too old to figure it out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.32.62 (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Alouette", "Down by the Station", and "Little Bunny Foo Foo"

I've read all three articles. It seems to me that they all use basically the same melody, and the articles ought to state this. Based on the articles, I assume that the orignal source for the tune is the French Canadian one, "Alouette". Perhaps the two other articles could be edited to indicate this. 71.38.239.116 (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Thomas Thurston, tnthurston@msn.com

List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones

An article that falls under the scope of this project, List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones, has been nominated for featured list. Interested members can review and comment here. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

2010s pop song stubs

Music video vs. single

Is it explicitly stated anywhere, or is there a previous consensus on a project page, stating that if a song was only released as a music video that doesn't make it a single? If not, could we open up that discussion now? Fezmar9 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, could someone please comment at Talk:Sleigh Bells discography? Thanks. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FA Candidate

Hello. Red Dress (song) is currently a featured article candidate and your imput here would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Till 05:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Gregorian chant for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums

Recent edits have caused me to look more closely at List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums and the related templates. E.g., {{Billboard Year-End number one singles 1946–1959}} now has two songs in 1959 ("The Battle of New Orleans" and "Come Softly to Me"). There is no source for the year-end in the List article which points to a late November weekly chart. this website suggests that "Mack the Knife" was the number one song for that year. Other years show similar discrepancies. Does anyone have proper sources for this WP list?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

im trying to download some muse songs but don't know the name to any. I know they're hits as they were on the radio

Can anyone help me by listing 7 or 8 of muse's most played radio songs? Thanks alot Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.93.191 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP Songs in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Songs for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1990 album "Lap of Luxury" missing from this article

They had at least a couple hits off of this album, but this article doesn't even mention it: http://www.amazon.com/Lap-Luxury-Cheap-Trick/dp/B0000026D1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.65.231 (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lyrics

While we're at it, the most complete encyclopedia in the world may as well have song lyrics for every song which has an article. Frankly, I'm not sure why this isn't already the case. Epheterson (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The main reason is because the lyrics to almost all recent songs are protected by copyright. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
For the lyrics which are no longer under copyright, Wikisource is actually a better place for listing the lyrics. The Wikisource page can be linked in the song article, of course. Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Cover version addition too promotional?

In the article The Power of Love (Frankie Goes to Hollywood song) a large section has been added regarding a cover version by Gabrielle Aplin here: [1]. I'm of the opinion that this addition more promotional than informative. The adding editor claims that this version has charted, but I find no evidence of that. Either way, I see no other song article where a minor cover version has this much space dedicated to it. Perhaps I'm wrong, which is why I am asking here. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Adele/archive1

Would anyone from the Wikiproject like to leave any comments which they feel concerns them or would cast a vote in support or opposition based on your findings, I would much appreciate it. The list has garnered several good (and resolved) reviews, but no votes have been cast. Thanks. AARON• TALK 12:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Release to iTunes

Does a release to iTunes mean that a song has become an official single? I thought it did not, but there is a confusion regarding this in the chronology of the article "In My City", where it is still unsure if "Erase" is the next single. As per this link from Digital Spy, the song is being released to iTunes. But is that enough? I thought confirmation from the artist or the label is necessary. Please weigh in your thoughts. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as long as iTunes is selling it separately from the parent album and NOT just as an album track. Also doesn't count if it is a 'promotional campaign' where they just strip album tracks out for sale in a 'Countdown to (album) release' program, usually one a week. If iTunes is selling it, it can most definitely be sourced. Since the release date shown at your link is in the past, the actual release source should be used. Just a news report (even from the best of sources) doesn't make it true, as even artists and labels state dates that are frequently pushed back and sometimes even never occur.—Iknow23 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Speed Demon (song), an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.--Tomcat (7) 18:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions for list articles

Feedback requested Presently, Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers contains a hodge-podge of naming schemes, including "List of [x] songs", "List of songs recorded by [x]", etc. Could someone suggest some streamlined fashion for how these should be named? For what it's worth, it also seems like mixing composers together with performers is a bad idea: part of the problem will be solved if we can extract "List of songs with lyrics by [x]" from "List of songs [x] played on"—those are two evidently and significantly different schemes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that mixing composers together with performers is a bad idea, and I welcome an attempt to standardise the names of these articles. How about dividing the category into, say, two subcategories, Category:Lists of songs by author and Category:Lists of songs by performer? Also, my preference would be for the article titles to be in the form "List of songs recorded by [x]" or "List of songs written by [x]", as the alternatives are more likely to be confused. For example, a reader could quite easily think that List of Free songs refers to all songs for which the copyright has expired, or that List of Fun songs comprises songs that are, well, fun to listen to. Similarly, "List of Bob Dylan songs" would not make clear whether this was a list of songs either recorded or written by Dylan. Therefore, I feel that the clearer and more appropriate titles for these articles would be "List of songs recorded by Free", "List of songs recorded by Fun", "List of songs written by Bob Dylan", "List of songs recorded by Bob Dylan", etc. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be a "List of songs recorded by [x]" as often artists will record songs by other artist. The naming convention "List of songs by [x]" is confusing. The naming convention should be such that you can disambiguate between List of songs: "written by [x]", "recorded by [x]", "performed by [x]" though i am less happy with the later because I associate perform with performing live on stage. etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WP Policy say that article names should follow WP:NDESC and WP:PRECISION. "List of [x] songs" and/or "List of songs by [x]" do NOT meet the criteria of these two policies, being neither descriptive nor precise. This leaves the debate at how we should differentiate, whether by recording, by performance or are there other suggestions out there? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:NDESC has no application here. There's nothing non-neutral or judgmental about either title. WP:PRECISION could apply to this case had the original title been something like "[Artist] songs." "List of [Artist] songs" meets WP:PRECISION since it clearly indicates whose songs are being listed without ambiguity. "List of [Artist] songs" can be reasonably and unambiguously interpreted as a complete, general list of songs recorded by an artist during their career.Father McKenzie (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If it is so clear to you that it means "recorded," (as opposed to "performed by" or "written and recorded by", say?) why can't we specify recorded? I cannot fathom anybody's objection to clarity. My point still stands, "List of [x] songs" fails WP:PRECISE, saying as it does, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that and WP:NDESC states, "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view". If this was not the case the following recent move would not have been necessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that "List of [Artist] songs" is unambiguous. I believe that a reader could quite reasonably think that, say, "List of Boston songs" refers to songs about the city Boston, rather than songs by the American rock band Boston – they wouldn't make that mistake if the article's title were "List of songs recorded by Boston". Would "List of Elvis Presley songs" refer to songs that Presley recorded, songs that he wrote, songs about him, or some combination of all three? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I came here specifically to open a discussion on this very topic, so I'm glad to see someone else already has—and so recently! I would like to state my preference for "songs recorded by X" and "songs written by X", but I also agree that "songs performed by X" can be misleading. Perhaps "songs featuring X" would be better? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "List of songs recorded by X" is unambiguous and IMHO clearer than "list of X songs". It would also make more sense to have one category for lists by author and one for lists by performer, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Recap

This discussion has been ongoing for two weeks and notice has been placed on a number of related projects. I think we now have to move this along while at the same time welcoming and encouraging more comments.

Barring one contributor, we have all plumped for “List of Songs recorded by [artist].” This seems to suggest that all the entries in the present category should be along the following lines – List of songs (action) by (person).

I am reading a consensus to empty the main category Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers, diffusing the various entries into relevant sub-categories of songs. Am I correct or are we considering deletion of the category?

Does anybody have any proposal what should be included in the guidelines for WP:SONG to close this out? --Richhoncho (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers

Songs by writer, songs by production, songs recorded have now all being moved out into their own relevant category. What is left in the category is quite dissimilar in naming and/or content. Does anybody have any suggestions what to do with the remaining 35 members of the category? Unless anybody has any idea for naming conventions, my thought would be to empty the members to Category:Lists of songs which could also do with a little consideration --Richhoncho (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of those remaining are still essentially "by-performer" lists, e.g. List of songs covered by The Beatles, Repertoire of Plácido Domingo, List of Genesis medleys etc. It could also make sense to make a separate category for lists by original artist, since there are quite a few lists of the type "list of cover versions of X songs". Jafeluv (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish I considered it as simple as that, here’s some of the main considerations :-

  • Repertoire of Plácido Domingo – this is a list of Operas not songs, but there to categorize it?
  • Some of the lists are one-offs, List of songs introduced by Frank Sinatra, List of Runrig's Gaelic Songs, Emmylou Harris appearances. Perhaps these should be moved to the Lists of songs as a temporary measure.
  • Those that use the word, "collaborations", most songs are collaborations! Exemplified by List of songs by David Foster which includes produced, written and arranged by, but not performed.
  • The Presley hit singles don’t really belong here, they are more discography entries, rather that song entries, but where should they go?
  • Please note: I have omitted the lists containing the word “cover” because I think there are issues there as well, and this is enough post for the moment.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I moved otherwise: [2] -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Not unhappy with the renaming, but the songs weren't actually recorded on "Sun label" they were recorded on tape for release by the Sun label. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree, a better name is possible. -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC about iTunes as a source for release histories

Hi, would appreciate it if you could take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking songs without articles

What is the style convention for dealing with songs that don't have articles of their own? Is it better to link to the album the song comes from, or to not link at all? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NSONGS, should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
That seems to refer to creating a redirect such that linking to the song title will redirect to another page. I was referring to the act of wikilinking the song title from another page: assuming that an article (redirect or otherwise) with the name of the song does not exist, should the song title be wikilinked to an album, or not wikilinked at all? Or should the redirect just be created and moot the issue? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's misleading and makes the user think the song has an article, only to find out it does not. No I do not think it's okay to link songs without articles to album articles, unless it's a redirect that was typed into the search box. If it doesn't have it's own article, it should not have a link. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "misleading the user into thinking a song has an article" is a valid argument against the practice. The main point of wikilinking is to provide further information on a topic; a user should not assume that a wikilink automatically means that the topic linked has an article of its own and, if they do, should not be dissatisfied to instead be linked to an article that has the most possible information on a topic. To reiterate my opinion from your talk page: "Personally, I think allowing links to albums are a good way to (1) get information about a song, even if it's not fully notable enough to have its own article; and (2) disambiguate which song with a given title is being referred to." —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually my best reason has to deal with the Queen album articles. Each some on most of the albums had a link, most of them just linked to a different part of the page that described the song, BUT OTHERS linked actual articles solely dedicated to the song. It was rather confusing it made learning from the article bothersome, and not at all helpful. If instead the only songs with links were the ones with independent articles, it'd not only look more tidy, but also display the proper information the links are there for (to bring you to that article the link implies you will go to) I like redirects only when typed into the search box, because that tells you it doesn't have it's own article BUT you can learn about it from going to the album page, but in some cases what if the song does have an article, but the person linking it doesn't know this and he/she instead links it to the album. This would lead to the link not leading to the best article it can. OK an example: The song Dumb by Nirvana was under a great debate whether it should have an article or not, the consensus is no, but many people may expect it to have one. So in an article if you see the song "Dumb" with a link and it only takes you to the In Utero page, it'd be rather annoying in my opinion and it is best if there was just no link on the song title at all. What if every song on In Utero had a link linking to In Utero except for the 4 songs with their own independent articles? How would the user know that "Heart-Shaped Box", "Rape Me", "Pennyroyal Tea", and "All Apologies" have articles if all 12 twelves songs showed links, when the other 8 would just redirect to In Utero?

Please click each link and tell me whether you think this is convenient or not:

  1. "Serve the Servants" – 3:36
  2. "Scentless Apprentice" (Cobain, Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic) – 3:48
  3. "Heart-Shaped Box" – 4:41
  4. "Rape Me" – 2:50
  5. "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle" – 4:09
  6. "Dumb" – 2:32
  7. "Very Ape" – 1:56
  8. "Milk It" – 3:55
  9. "Pennyroyal Tea" – 3:37
  10. "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" – 4:51
  11. "tourette's" – 1:35
  12. "All Apologies" – 3:51

OR

Please click each link and tell me whether you think this is convenient or not:

  1. "Serve the Servants" – 3:36
  2. "Scentless Apprentice" (Cobain, Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic) – 3:48
  3. "Heart-Shaped Box" – 4:41
  4. "Rape Me" – 2:50
  5. "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle" – 4:09
  6. "Dumb" – 2:32
  7. "Very Ape" – 1:56
  8. "Milk It" – 3:55
  9. "Pennyroyal Tea" – 3:37
  10. "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" – 4:51
  11. "tourette's" – 1:35
  12. "All Apologies" – 3:51

Which is more confusing and misleading? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, this is a poor example, as am I not suggesting that you link songs to their album page from that album page, and certainly not for each song in the list! Such linking would violate the Manual of Style on linking. I am referring specifically to the mention of song titles on third-party articles like 12-12-12: The Concert for Sandy Relief (a concert with performances by multiple performers of multiple songs from multiple albums) and Gimme Some Truth (album) (a collection of songs from multiple albums), two pages where you have removed existing links to albums from songs that do not have pages of their own. (Note also the allowances of MOSLINK to link to redirects or to even create red links, when deemed appropriate by the context.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that was the song you messaged me for delinking, because I delinked a song from the track-list of Appetite for Destruction because it had no article. So I assumed that that's what you meant, but my point still stands, it'd still be rather unhelpful to be redirected to an album through a song link especially since the person clicking most of the time is there to only learn about the one song and not the entire album. In some cases the album article says nothing about the song except for the fact that it's on the track-list. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a hard and fast rule; I guess for me it depends. I agree that in the In Utero album article, linking every non-notable song back to the In Utero article is not useful. In the 12-12-12 concert article, however, I can at least see some benefit in linking "My Valentine" or "Cut Me Some Slack" because unlike in the In Utero example, there's potential to question what songs these are. That actually happened to me when looking at the Bruce Springsteen segment of the 12-12-12 article. I'm not really familiar with Springsteen's recent work, so when I saw "Wrecking Ball", my first thought was that he performed the Neil Young song (from Young's 1989 Freedom album and later covered by Emmylou Harris in 1995). It was only when I cut and paste "Wrecking Ball" into the search box that I remembered that The Boss' latest album is also called Wrecking Ball, and so he was in all likelihood singing the title track at the 12-12-12 concert. It does not seem unreasonable in such instances to link such songs to their respective albums' track listing (e.g. "My Valentine").  Gong show 17:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if it linked to a specific part of the page it'd work, but if it just links to the top of the page, I don't really see it being useful. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Otherwise, the categorization loses potency as it is no longer per the defining characteristic; also, the official (legal) credit could be misconstrued (category names may be seen in the article unordered, disjoint, or incomplete)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_8&oldid=1140750662"