![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The song "My Silent Love" has no article -- is there someone who could create one? (It's a bit beyond my current ability.)
Some seed info:
Music by Dana Suesse, lyrics by Edward Heyman.
Used in the following movies:
The Uninvited (1944); played on BBC radio when Roderick spends his first night at Windward. A Place in the Sun (1951); played at the party where George meets Angela. Sabrina (1954); played at the outdoor party.
There are a few YouTube postings; unfortunately the version with Bonnie Poe (as Betty Boop) and Bela Lugosi has been pulled.
BMJ-pdx ( talk) 14:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently completed an edit of Waltzing Matilda by adding {{ infobox song}} and made a range of minor changes. My edit was reverted with the comment: "....It is my understanding that tradtional folk ballads like this one are not given infoboxes (see Auld Lang Syne, Wind that shakes the barley...." May I please receive some guidance on whether the claim by this editor is correct? Many thanks Rangasyd ( talk) 09:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The table below is a list of redirects pointing to X (Kylie Minogue album). Those marked article were created as articles, but are now redirects. The rest were created by the same person, on the same day, as redirects. A few other editors who are creating wholesale redirects in this manner. I have noticed creation of alternative spelling and variants (often xxx, xxx (song) and xxx (artist song), creating a single redirect for each song on the album (including unreleased and rumoured songs), and some who are creating every conceivable redirect possible, i.e. Nu-di-ty above. There are two issues here, namely :-
Redirect Name | Reason for creation | Date Created |
---|---|---|
( White Diamond (song) | article | 20 December 2006 |
White Diamond (Kylie Minogue song) | article | 10 January 2007 |
2 Hearts (Album) | article | 14 September 2007 |
Heart Beat Rock | article | 11 November 2007 |
Cosmic (song) | article | 28 February 2008 |
Sensitized(Kylie Minogue Song) | article | 08 March 2010 |
Like a Drug (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Sensitized (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Sensitized (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Heart Beat Rock (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Heart Beat Rock (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
No More Rain | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
No More Rain (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
No More Rain (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Stars (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-di-ty | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-Di-Ty | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-Di-Ty (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-Di-Ty (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-di-ty (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-di-ty (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Cosmic (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up the Disco | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up the Disco (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up the Disco (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up The Disco | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin Up the Disco | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Magnetic Electric | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Magnetic Electric (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Magnetic Electric (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
King or Queen (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
King or Queen (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
I Don't Know What It Is (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Carried Away (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Cherry Bomb (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Do It Again (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
-- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been working on the lists for top 10 UK singles of each year, expanding them into comprehensive articles. I have included a section with a list of all artists making their top 10 debut in each year, either as lead or featured artist. Solo artists with debut singles who have had previous success with bands are not included in the table but are noted separately.
The issue I have is on charity singles like those by The X Factor finalists. For example Joe McElderry reached number one with the X Factor finalists before his own debut single The Climb, so he has two entries in List of UK top 10 singles in 2009. This was also the chart debut for several other acts (Jedward and Olly Murs) so when they made their solo debut I have not included them again in the table and have put them in the notes section instead.
Because of this I have had to include the other finalists from each year in the table (e.g. Wagner, 2 Shoes and Johnny Robinson), even though they are not credited individually. Is this the right approach or should the act simply be "The X Factor Finalists..." with Joe McElderry/Alexandra Burke/Little Mix/Matt Cardle etc. having their official debut put down as their first solo release. The charity singles are included on their discographies.
Any feedback welcome and hope this makes sense, look at List of UK top 10 singles in 2009#Chart debuts to see what I mean.
Is there any sort of objective/specific criteria as to when its appropriate to have these "List of songs by musician x" type articles? I see them pop up at AFD now and again, and I never quite know how address them. I mean, there seems to be a loose agreement that something like List of Beatles songs is acceptable, and something like a "List of Trapt songs" would probably be unnecessary, because there's comparatively few notable songs throughout the band's career. (Looks like about 7 out of 70 - roughly 10%.) But most musicians probably fall somewhere in between the extreme and obvious cases.
Are there any criteria? Should we decide on some? I think its a good idea. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Closed as withdrawn by proposer. ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 16:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In the last RFC, which ended with a consensus to merge Infobox song and Infobox single, there was discussion about creating a merged album/track/single infobox ({{ Infobox sound recording}}) as a contrast to {{ Infobox musical composition}}, which is used for traditional songs and classical pieces.
With regards to the separation of Infobox album and Infobox song, two significant points were raised:
Note: This RfC is purely for consolidating the two templates, not removing one in favor of the other. If the elements that are exclusive to Albums (just three or four parameters) were added to the Songs infobox, there would be no perceptible changes, as in, readers wouldn't notice if Album was redirected to Songs. -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 13:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
As of [2011] a single has become defined as 'a Record containing not more than 4 tracks' where a 'track' is defined as 'a Recording which reproduces 1 Title whose playing time is not less than 2½ minutes when played at its correct speed
Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) | |
---|---|
![]() Placeholder for fair use file | |
Song by | |
Released | 3 December 1965 |
Recorded | 12 and 21 October 1965, EMI Studios, London |
Genre | |
Length | 2:05 |
Label | Parlophone |
Producer | George Martin |
|type=single
or |type=song
(or similar) could disable certain parameters.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}If Type=Album, ignore Writer/Published/Lyricist
". That's just one example. Another would be "If Type=Song, ignore Compiler/Director/Format
".--
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
15:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)|longtype=and EP
to its infobox, but I can't, because the current song/single infobox template doesn't let me. The album template would, but then it would read as "an EP and single by Animal Collective", which is the wrong order to phrase it (Peacebone is a single that was expanded to an EP). We can add |longtype=
to Infobox song, sure, but then it begs the question, why do we need two templates that are basically identical?|lyricist=
to an album or |italic_title=
to a track, we could add switches for those events that either disable those parameters or list the article in a maintenance category. This would be dependent on the value of |Type=
. --
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
{{Infobox album ...
or {{Infobox song ...
after it's redirected|Type=
Also, redundancy is not a sufficient reason to merge "infobox song" with "infobox album". Album and song are two different media: album is a collection of songs in one medium, and a song is... a song. Typing in the name of the merged infobox is not easy to memorize as typing either "infobox song" or "infobox album". The parameters related to songwriting, like "lyricist
" and "writer
"... well, that depends on whoever wrote all songs of an album. However, having a bunch of names of writers/lyrists/composers in a merged infobox about an album would result cluster. Imagine an infobox about a Chinese album, like
dandan youqing, and you'll get the message. (Note that I don't use "Track listing" template there due to Chinese characters there.)
Also, switching between any other type and "album
"/"EP
" in the "Type" parameter may seem simple, but the "Type" parameter in the merged infobox would require more coding to control the formatting of titles, i.e. italicization of titles. BTW, I asked
how personal opinions in lieu of applicable rules may influence consensus, and I received insightful responses, especially ones about using "common sense".
George Ho (
talk)
21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
if X then Y
is one of the simplest features any coder can implement, so I don't see why that matters. (Sorry for not responding to anything else you wrote, but it seems to be a repetition of
points about functionality that I've already responded to repeatedly.)--
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)|Type=
switch code would actually look like.--
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Rubber Soul (post-merge Infobox song) (subject to change) |
Rubber Soul (Infobox album) | Rubber Soul (Infobox song) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
This is (roughly) what the post-merge template documentation would look like.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
DocumentationWP articles about sound recordings often include an infobox, which provides key facts as discussed in the article. Template:Infobox musical composition and Template:Infobox anthem are also available for other uses. The code below can be copied and completed with information pertaining to sound recording articles (i.e: albums, tracks, or singles). CodeMost articles will not need all the following fields; unused fields may be left blank. Please note that adding fields other than those below, such as Example usage 1 - Albums/EPs{{Infobox sound recording <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums --> | name = | type = | artist = | cover = | alt = | released = <!-- {{Start date|||}} --> | recorded = | venue = | studio = | genre = <!-- Do not add unsourced genres --> | length = <!-- {{Duration|m=|s=}} --> | label = | producer = | prev_title = | prev_year = | next_title = | next_year = }} Example usage 2 - Songs/Singles{{Infobox sound recording <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs --> | name = | cover = <!-- Just the file name --> | alt = | caption = | type = | artist = | album = | released = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --> | recorded = | studio = | venue = | genre = <!-- Do not add unsourced genres --> | length = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} --> | label = | writer = | producer = | prev_title = | prev_year = | next_title = | next_year = | misc = }} |
Unless anyone has objections, the uppercase parameters in transclusions of {{
Infobox single}}/{{
Infobox song}} (except |ISWC=
, |A-side=
and |B-side=
) are to be changed to their lowercase counterparts by a bot per
MOS:INFOBOX, which states that parameter names should use lower-case unless they are proper nouns
; see
WP:BOTREQ#Parameter titles. This is to be done as part of the merger of the two templates, discussed here earlier.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
07:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
When it should be used? When the artist release a single on itunes and not to radio, or when they release album tracks ahead of the album release? I don't get the concept, and the media never uses that phrase. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Archive 17/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Songs.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Songs, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
When a song is familiar (and parodied) enough for a parody to be published in a notable source, how should the existence of parodies be mentioned in the song's article? Examples: an especially memorable parody of " There's a Long Long Trail A-Winding" (There's a long long nail a-grinding into the heel of my shoe...) is in my copy of Rise Up Singing, and an Americanized version of " The Road to the Isles" is in that same songbook as well as being featured in Julie (George novel). Can you refer me to guidelines, or at least good examples of how to deal well with parodies? -- Egmonster ( talk) 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Ojorojo,
X201,
JJMC89,
George Ho,
Ilovetopaint, and
JG66: There are a lot of transclusions of {{
Infobox single}} which have turned up in
Category:Errors reported by Module String (about 1,100, although many of those should be fine now but haven't been updated). Most of these are due to formatting or other errors in the chronology parameters, such as missing quotation marks, missing line breaks before year, missing brackets for year, missing year and having two or more separate singles (not a double A-side) in a parameter. Some of those are due to there being brackets after the song title containing extra information (e.g. "(re-release)", "(with Paul McCartney)"). I'm not sure whether those should be removed, whether re-releases should be counted and so on. Help would be appreciated. (If necessary, the template can always be reverted back to the previous version, although I do think it's better to fix the errors first.)
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
![]() ![]() |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 10:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The images of Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song) are taken to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 1#Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song), where I invite you to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is relisted into Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 21#Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song). You can comment there while the discussion is still ongoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. I started Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HIStory/Ghosts/1, a GA reassessment on HIStory/Ghosts. Feel free to improve the article and/or comment at the community GAR. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Ojorojo:, @ JG66: If a song article includes a list of cover versions—without any other disucssion—do the covers need to meet the requirements of WP:COVERSONG to be included? The policy reads as though it applies to discussions, and not lists. Is a list assumed to be a form of discussion, or an implied discussion? Tapered ( talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In past discussions, I don't recall COVERSONG only being applied to text or separate sections within the article. WP articles should provide encyclopedic content and not an indiscriminate collection of information. COVERSONG is an attempt to define what is noteworthy. Seemingly random lists of artists who recorded a particular song may overwhelm articles (particularly those with dozens or hundreds of covers) and detract from the proper focus on the song itself. Renditions should be limited to notable artists and be able to provide more than a name: date, singles chart info, album name, awards, etc. Ideally, they should referenced to a discussion of the rendition in a reliable source and not from a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, such as an album track listing or a general song search at AllMusic or Discogs. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC) This is how I've always handled things too - I only include cover versions from notable artists that can be sourced with a third party source, and trim out any others. Even outside of WP:COVERSONG, that's a pretty commonly used inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The removed bullet point list (three of the versions were actually referenced) was of value because it illustrated the variety of artists—rockers, bluesmen, rappers, and points between—who've recorded the song. If it wouldn't be original research to write, "The song has been covered by a wide variety of artists, rockers Alex Chilton...etc" perhaps that or something similar could be included. In any event, the idea is to somehow illustrate variety. To sum up, deleting the bullet list removed what seems to me useful info from the article. Personally, I don't like the length of the list, but all the artists removed on 5 June were notable, while most were, indeed, unsourced. Tapered ( talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where else to discuss this, so I'll just post here and see what happens. Very often, when viewing a category for songs by a particular artist, you will see genre categories. For example, Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:Electropop songs. But not all of the songs in the Lady Gaga category are electropop songs. Certainly " The Lady Is a Tramp" isn't electropop.
This seems to be very common, though, associating songs by an artist with a one or more specific genres (other examples: Category:Amy Winehouse songs, Category:Rihanna songs). We hold a strict standard to articles about individual songs, placing genres in Template:Infobox single/ Template:Infobox song only when a reliable source confirms a specific genre or genres, yet we don't hold this standard to categories. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Any suggestions for how to move forward or get additional input from more editors? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the above: categorization of categories does not have to be as specific as by article. Imagine looking in Category:Reggae albums by Jamaican artists and not seeing the Bob Marley category! Some artists almost exclusively work in one idiom and then have a one-off album in another genre (e.g. electronic music artist Moby with the hardcore punk Animal Rights). In those cases, categorize the artist by the most typical genre or subgenre and the specific album by a more specific and accurate category. Imagine the chaos of having to sort through every single article of over 200,000 in over 18,000 artist categories and taking out individual articles... This is a huge scope of work for virtually no benefit and it would end up flooding certain categories with hundreds of articles instead of having a few subcategories. E.g. Isn't it better if Category:Hard rock albums by Australian artists has Category:AC/DC albums in it rather than every individual AC/DC album? That's the entire purpose of this category structure in the first place. I have to admit, the very idea of taking Category:Led Zeppelin albums out of Category:Hard rock albums by English artists just because Led Zeppelin III is a more mellow folk-rock album is ridiculous to me. I don't think you guys are thinking this through nor do you understand that the guidelines for categorizing an article are different and more stringent than for a category and for good reason. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As a starting point, wouldn't it be better to clarify WP:SONGS#Categories to reflect something like:
"Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category:<Artist name> songs" has not been added to this genre category.
The larger issue still needs some consideration, but meanwhile some of the current problems can be remedied. Propose to change WP:SONG#Categories as follows:
Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable: ...
- 5. Other than Category:Songs by artist, "Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into at least two other subcategories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by country and one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre,
but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs.Notes: ...
4. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category:<Artist name> songs" has not been added to this genre category.
If there are no objections, I'll add this. — Ojorojo ( talk) 17:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this change, as Led Zeppelin is NOT limited to hard rock, but is also known for blues rock, folk rock and heavy metal (see main article, in the infobox). Synthwave.94 ( talk) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, and I share Another Believer's sentiments about this system of categorization. I've always seen edits like this to be completely ridiculous. One idea that came to mind is to follow the model of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups. As we see with ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Maroon 5, it is categorized under ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musical groups, but not ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:American musical groups—that's left for the categorization of the article. We can apply the same principle, for example, to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Lady Gaga songs: categorized under ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia categories named after electropop songs (or something to that effect, preferably less ugly and more succinct), but not ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Electropop songs, which will be left to the articles. Thoughts? ℯ xplicit 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there another place to raise this issue? I'd hate to see this conversation stall. RfC? Not sure how to proceed to get more community discussion. @ Walter Görlitz, Michig, Izno, Ojorojo, Koavf, Synthwave.94, and Explicit: Pinging you all as contributors to this section. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about whether to include a petition started by Elijah Daniel in the article about him, which was a White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem.
You may comment, if you wish, at: Talk:Elijah_Daniel#RfC_about_White_House_petition_to_make_Party_in_the_USA_the_national_anthem.
Sagecandor ( talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The parent company of AllMusic was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Media Network. Cunard ( talk) 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Hands (Mike Perry song)#Artist credits.
nyuszika7h (
talk)
15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Dutch certification entry – removal or not? about what to do about the template parameter for Dutch certifications. The official NVPI website which used to show all the Dutch certifications has been inactive now for almost two years, and the 400 or so song and album articles that use this template now just link to a series of pop-up ads when you click on the citation, which probably isn't good for Wikipedia or anybody's computer or mobile device. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Another editor will not accept my reference for who plays on the original, or at least Bobby Day's version and then insists on calling the genre Bubblegum pop, a genre that was not even invented until a decade after the song was recorded. I'd rather not have an edit war so if a few folks would stop on by, that would be great. If you really agree with him (it's got to be a guy) then so be it. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Before I tried to edit the page, another writer had listed 12 of 25 song titles that are part of the lyrics of the song "Song for Another Time" by Old Dominion.
I tried to add the other 13 song titles to the page. I typed it out and inserted it, but someone deleted my addition along with the original listing stating names of people required citations. It is not a list of people. It is a list of song titles and the singers or bands which recorded them, many of which (maybe all) are already listed in other Wikipedia pages.
Can the actual lyrics be inserted in the page for this song? The lyrics are the citation which document that the song titles in the list below are in the song. If I am not permitted to list the singers names, can I list the song titles without the singers names, and state that the song lyrics may contain these song titles?
Please tell me if I am allowed to add the following information about a song to the page for "Song for Another Time" by Old Dominion:
The lyrics cleverly include approximately 25 song titles by other singers, bands. Song titles listed in order as they appear in Song for Another Time: 1. Right Now - Van Halen 2. Marina del Rey by George Strait 3. This Time Tomorrow - The Kinks or Ray Davies featuring Mumford & Sons
4. Yesterday - The Beatles (Paul McCartney) 5. Sunshine - Keane 6. I Can’t Make You Love Me - Bonnie Raitt
7. Brown Eyed Girl - Van Morrison 8. Sweet Caroline - Neil Diamond 9. Free Fallin’ - Tom Petty 10. Small Town Saturday Night - Hal Ketchum
Before you lose that Lovin’ Feelin’ = 11. You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling by The Righteous Brothers. The lyrics are actually lovin’ feelin’ in both songs.
12. Dancing on the Ceiling - Lionel Ritchie 13. Teenage Dream - Katy Perry 14. Paradise City by Guns and Roses 15. I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry- Hank Williams 16. One More Day - Diamond Rio 17. What Do You Say - Reba McEntire 18. Pretty Woman - Roy Orbison 19. Sunday Morning Coming Down - Johnny Cash (written by Kris Kristofferson) 20. Drive - The Cars 21. Country Road - James Taylor 22. Pink Houses - John Mellencamp
23. Candle in the Wind - Elton John
24. Always on My Mind - Elvis Presley 1972, and Willie Nelson 1982
25. I Will Always Love You - Whitney Houston
or please tell me why this list cannot be added. Thank you breeze2u Breeze2u ( talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hiya, Wikipedians!
I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album. Another editor has reverted several of these edits. I made revisions based on his comments but these changes were reverted also. I do not agree with - and, in at least one instance, do not understand the objections given. Rather than get into an edit war I decided to bring the issue here.
The other editor initially objected that the references I had added were not notable. I felt that a band that is a Grammy award-winning member of the Grand Ole Opry and an album that has received national press coverage (Rolling Stone, The New Yorker) was at least as notable as the often obscure recordings already mentioned in these particular articles. The other party agreed with that observation, but then argued that the real reason for reverting was to avoid "endless lists of covers." Few, if any, of these articles mentioned more than a handful of covers - none were at risk of being overwhelmed by endless lists. And I felt that removing only a single entry, simply because it was the one most recently added, was highly arbitrary. Then the reason appeared to become that tribute albums are inherently not notable - another arbitrary decision - and I pointed out that many of the remaining entries were also for songs from tribute albums, some by major performers. And I was particularly confused by his citation of wikipedia policies that seemed to deal with the creation of stand-alone articles rather than additions to existing articles, as none of these edits had created a new, stand-alone article.
This individual seemed to consider it to be a challenge or personal affront that I disagreed with him - this would be borne out by a review of our dialog on his talk page. His most recent response was to remove ALL mentions of cover versions in several of these articles - which seems to me to be based on spite rather than a desire for editorial consistency. In other words..."I'll show you...."
If the determination is indeed that there should be NO mention of ANY cover versions of these songs, so be it - maybe that's better than arbitrary omissions. I'm completely in favor of consistency. But I personally think that that information adds to a reader's understanding of the song's cultural impact - and also that completely removing that information, rather than considering the addition of an item to the list, is a questionable decision. If you're going to remove entire sections from multiple articles, do it because it's the right editorial decision, NOT because you want to spite another editor.
Thanks for your thoughts. PurpleChez ( talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The Coolies did an album in 1986 consisting mostly of Simon & Garfunkel covers. I was in the process of adding this fact to the "Covers" section of the articles on each of these songs, however, Sundayclose began following me, and undoing these edits. Rather than getting in an edit war, I figured I'd leave it to the masses. DB Records, The Coolies, is it worthy of mention in the articles for these songs?
For Number 1 to Infinity (residency show) please. Legs 3 and 5. — Calvin999 08:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't even have an importance rating, but, well, there's the obvious irony.
-- Cprice45 ( talk) 23:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The following is a request from my talkpage. I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:-
Could you do what is necessary to change the redirect from Roll with the Punches away from Two (Lenka album)? There is also a Dawes song and now a Van Morrison album with the same title. Thank you for your help. I don't know how to do it.
I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:--- Richhoncho ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've been doing some cleanup of tracklist templates and wanted to check regarding song titles. Not the titles of articles about songs, but the titles of the songs themselves, as they appear in double quotes.
(dance remix)or
(acoustic version), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note?
(Intro)or
(Interlude), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note to its function on the recording?
It seems pretty obvious to me but at least one editor disagrees and I felt I should get additional opinions. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
From MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:MINORWORK:
Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work.
Given that singles may consist of more than one track and thus be considered a "major work", this guideline contradicts WP:MOSMUSIC
In popular music, album, mixtape and EP titles should be italicized and song and single titles should be in quotes
For example, "Fickle Cycle" from Grass (or "Grass"?) is not really a single nor a B-side, it's simply a track from a single. So shouldn't we be italicizing singles? I don't mean to italicize songs that were released as singles, but rather in cases like Grass, where we're explicitly referring to the entire release. Obviously this all ties further into the above RfC.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect: | The single Good Vibrations was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Correct: | The song "Good Vibrations" was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Incorrect?: | "Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Correct: | Good Vibrations was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Correct?: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the Good Vibrations single |
Correct?: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single |
Correct: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations |
Correct?: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile" |
I have to unarchive this from the most recent archive page, because it's closed with a lot of wrong advice (wrong from a WP/MOS perspective, and from that of other style guides, and basic logic, and independent reliable sources on music and record collecting). Short version at end; most of this is analysis and background. The overall view given above is misinterpreting the italics versus quotes relationship. It's not strictly "main work versus sub-work" at all. Italics are used for "major works", in a very vague sense, which includes novellas, operettas, small paintings, epic poems, short films, etc. – all rather short works in comparison to average novels, operas, larger artworks, collected volumes of poetry, feature films and TV series, etc. Quotation marks are used for "minor works", and they do not have to be sub-works of something else. If I write a song called "My Chicken Can Run Faster'n Yours" and never record it, so it is never a sub-work on an album or other release, it still gets quotation marks.
Next, people get EPs and singles mixed up, a lot, even within the industry, because the meaning has shifted over time. If you follow the nomenclature in music collector publications, comprehensive discographies, and other such works that are modern, a general consensus definition emerges that an EP is a "mini-album" with a discrete title of its own, and no fixed number of tracks, but it'll probably be considered an EP if the overall length is roughly 50% or less than of a typical album, and it's not mostly or entirely variants of the same track, nor a larger-format (e.g. 10″ or 12″) version of a 7″. Some EPs only have two tracks (e.g. Licht und Blindheit by Joy Division), and some people like to classify those as singles, regardless of artistic or label intent (that's a form of WP:OR). When the term originated, it meant an "extended play" version of a single, but this meaning is pretty much dead.
In modern terms, it's definitely a single if a) it's a pre-release of a song from an upcoming album, usually with another track or two or three; it's a re-release of a song on a current or recent album, usually with one or more additional tracks, c) it's a release of a song that isn't on or planned to be on an album at all, usually with one+ addl. tracks (and doesn't have a unique name, but is named for one of the included tracks). The additional tracks may be album tracks, or previously unreleased, or live cuts, or remixes. What makes it a single not an EP is it being named after the "A-side" (usually), or not having a name and just being something like "Good Vibrations"/"Let's Go Away for a While" on the labels (for media with such labels). People will argue about much later re-releases of material from an old album as new singles vs. EPs, with different people preferring a different classifier. The most consistent approach is to treat them as singles, unless they have a title that isn't a repeat of one of the song names, have "EP" in the title, or are consistently marketed as EPs, usually with some new content on them, that isn't just remixes of the title track, or previously released tracks. Regardless of that kerfuffle, a single can be multiple discs; I've seen some that were four discs with dozens of mixes of the same track and maybe one or a couple of other tracks, and pretty much no one calls them EPs.
Moving on, '"Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as ...' has as its subject a song title, so that gets quotes. A corrected table looks like this:
Incorrect: | The single Good Vibrations was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Correct: | The song "Good Vibrations" was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Technically Correct, but rather confusing: |
"Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Incorrect, and both confusing and confused: |
Good Vibrations was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Much clearer: | In 2006, the EP Good Vibrations: 40th Anniversary Edition was released, with various versions of the title song and an additional track if it really qualifies as an EP (which some will argue it does) |
Also clearer alternative: |
"Good Vibrations" was re-released as a new single in 2006 with various versions of the title song and an additional track if consensus agrees it's not really an EP |
Incorrect: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the Good Vibrations single |
Correct: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single |
Incorrect: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations |
Technically correct but rather redundant: |
(in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" |
Correct: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile" a more complete reference of a very specific release |
Part of the confusion in the original table seems to be a supposition along the lines "if something is in quotation marks then the other something it was published within must be in italics." Just not true. It'll be true of articles in a periodical and chapters in book – and songs on an album. It's not true of chapters that have subchapters (both "levels" get quotation marks), "epic" songs with multiple named movements (they both get quotation marks; some examples are Rush's "2012" on the album 2012, and Kate Bush's "The Ninth Wave" on Hounds of Love, not to be confused with the single "Hounds of Love", released in four versions with different B-sides), or a TV show episode with a title and several individually titled segments - all quotation marks again, with the series in italics. Similarly, two different "levels" of works can both be in italics, e.g. Michael Moorcock's novel The Jewel in the Skull and four others were republished in the single-vol. The History of the Runestaff; see also Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring as a stand-alone book and The Lord of the Rings as the complete work (though series/franchises do not take italics or quotation marks, except where the oeuvre as a whole is named after one of the constituent works, thus the Marvel Cinematic Universe but the Star Wars Expanded Universe). In short, there is no – and cannot be – any "only one thing can be italicized and one thing in quotes" rule, because works do not come in only two levels of titles.
Short version: Don't overcomplicate things. Albums and EPs get italics, songs and singles (including 12-inchers, maxi-singles, and multi-CD single packs) get quotation marks. Never waver from this pattern, and disputation will dissipate, being reserved for cases where the real world disagrees, e.g. about whether Licht und Blindheit is an EP or a single. Lean toward EP, since it isn't named after any song on it.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in the ongoing deletion discussion about Fiona Apple's protest song " Tiny Hands" for the 2017 Women's March at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Hands. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There is an ongoing debate on the criteria for the one-hit wonders in America listings over here at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria. It'd be nice if we could get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan ( talk) 05:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ceryfication source doesnt works. Eurohunter ( talk) 10:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If you're interested in the topic, your comments would be appreciated at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria where there is a discussion with sweeping ramifications about whether the "one-hit wonder" articles will be based on charting songs or on artists described in sources. Binksternet ( talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Replacement of the Discogs sources by iTunes or other shop is it positive and correct move? Is there a list It contains potential (common) banned sources? Eurohunter ( talk) 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw this wikiepdia article for songwriter Kyle West, my dad. /info/en/?search=Category:Songs_written_by_Kyle_West But can't seem to link his 50 or so songwriter and producer credits here on wikipedia either. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/kyle-west-mn0000107983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsfan4ever ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The song "My Silent Love" has no article -- is there someone who could create one? (It's a bit beyond my current ability.)
Some seed info:
Music by Dana Suesse, lyrics by Edward Heyman.
Used in the following movies:
The Uninvited (1944); played on BBC radio when Roderick spends his first night at Windward. A Place in the Sun (1951); played at the party where George meets Angela. Sabrina (1954); played at the outdoor party.
There are a few YouTube postings; unfortunately the version with Bonnie Poe (as Betty Boop) and Bela Lugosi has been pulled.
BMJ-pdx ( talk) 14:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently completed an edit of Waltzing Matilda by adding {{ infobox song}} and made a range of minor changes. My edit was reverted with the comment: "....It is my understanding that tradtional folk ballads like this one are not given infoboxes (see Auld Lang Syne, Wind that shakes the barley...." May I please receive some guidance on whether the claim by this editor is correct? Many thanks Rangasyd ( talk) 09:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The table below is a list of redirects pointing to X (Kylie Minogue album). Those marked article were created as articles, but are now redirects. The rest were created by the same person, on the same day, as redirects. A few other editors who are creating wholesale redirects in this manner. I have noticed creation of alternative spelling and variants (often xxx, xxx (song) and xxx (artist song), creating a single redirect for each song on the album (including unreleased and rumoured songs), and some who are creating every conceivable redirect possible, i.e. Nu-di-ty above. There are two issues here, namely :-
Redirect Name | Reason for creation | Date Created |
---|---|---|
( White Diamond (song) | article | 20 December 2006 |
White Diamond (Kylie Minogue song) | article | 10 January 2007 |
2 Hearts (Album) | article | 14 September 2007 |
Heart Beat Rock | article | 11 November 2007 |
Cosmic (song) | article | 28 February 2008 |
Sensitized(Kylie Minogue Song) | article | 08 March 2010 |
Like a Drug (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Sensitized (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Sensitized (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Heart Beat Rock (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Heart Beat Rock (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
No More Rain | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
No More Rain (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
No More Rain (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Stars (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-di-ty | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-Di-Ty | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-Di-Ty (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-Di-Ty (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-di-ty (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Nu-di-ty (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Cosmic (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up the Disco | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up the Disco (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up the Disco (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin' Up The Disco | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Rippin Up the Disco | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Magnetic Electric | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Magnetic Electric (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Magnetic Electric (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
King or Queen (song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
King or Queen (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
I Don't Know What It Is (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Carried Away (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Cherry Bomb (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
Do It Again (Kylie Minogue song) | redirect | 13 January 2017 |
-- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been working on the lists for top 10 UK singles of each year, expanding them into comprehensive articles. I have included a section with a list of all artists making their top 10 debut in each year, either as lead or featured artist. Solo artists with debut singles who have had previous success with bands are not included in the table but are noted separately.
The issue I have is on charity singles like those by The X Factor finalists. For example Joe McElderry reached number one with the X Factor finalists before his own debut single The Climb, so he has two entries in List of UK top 10 singles in 2009. This was also the chart debut for several other acts (Jedward and Olly Murs) so when they made their solo debut I have not included them again in the table and have put them in the notes section instead.
Because of this I have had to include the other finalists from each year in the table (e.g. Wagner, 2 Shoes and Johnny Robinson), even though they are not credited individually. Is this the right approach or should the act simply be "The X Factor Finalists..." with Joe McElderry/Alexandra Burke/Little Mix/Matt Cardle etc. having their official debut put down as their first solo release. The charity singles are included on their discographies.
Any feedback welcome and hope this makes sense, look at List of UK top 10 singles in 2009#Chart debuts to see what I mean.
Is there any sort of objective/specific criteria as to when its appropriate to have these "List of songs by musician x" type articles? I see them pop up at AFD now and again, and I never quite know how address them. I mean, there seems to be a loose agreement that something like List of Beatles songs is acceptable, and something like a "List of Trapt songs" would probably be unnecessary, because there's comparatively few notable songs throughout the band's career. (Looks like about 7 out of 70 - roughly 10%.) But most musicians probably fall somewhere in between the extreme and obvious cases.
Are there any criteria? Should we decide on some? I think its a good idea. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Closed as withdrawn by proposer. ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 16:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In the last RFC, which ended with a consensus to merge Infobox song and Infobox single, there was discussion about creating a merged album/track/single infobox ({{ Infobox sound recording}}) as a contrast to {{ Infobox musical composition}}, which is used for traditional songs and classical pieces.
With regards to the separation of Infobox album and Infobox song, two significant points were raised:
Note: This RfC is purely for consolidating the two templates, not removing one in favor of the other. If the elements that are exclusive to Albums (just three or four parameters) were added to the Songs infobox, there would be no perceptible changes, as in, readers wouldn't notice if Album was redirected to Songs. -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 13:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
As of [2011] a single has become defined as 'a Record containing not more than 4 tracks' where a 'track' is defined as 'a Recording which reproduces 1 Title whose playing time is not less than 2½ minutes when played at its correct speed
Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) | |
---|---|
![]() Placeholder for fair use file | |
Song by | |
Released | 3 December 1965 |
Recorded | 12 and 21 October 1965, EMI Studios, London |
Genre | |
Length | 2:05 |
Label | Parlophone |
Producer | George Martin |
|type=single
or |type=song
(or similar) could disable certain parameters.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}If Type=Album, ignore Writer/Published/Lyricist
". That's just one example. Another would be "If Type=Song, ignore Compiler/Director/Format
".--
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
15:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)|longtype=and EP
to its infobox, but I can't, because the current song/single infobox template doesn't let me. The album template would, but then it would read as "an EP and single by Animal Collective", which is the wrong order to phrase it (Peacebone is a single that was expanded to an EP). We can add |longtype=
to Infobox song, sure, but then it begs the question, why do we need two templates that are basically identical?|lyricist=
to an album or |italic_title=
to a track, we could add switches for those events that either disable those parameters or list the article in a maintenance category. This would be dependent on the value of |Type=
. --
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
{{Infobox album ...
or {{Infobox song ...
after it's redirected|Type=
Also, redundancy is not a sufficient reason to merge "infobox song" with "infobox album". Album and song are two different media: album is a collection of songs in one medium, and a song is... a song. Typing in the name of the merged infobox is not easy to memorize as typing either "infobox song" or "infobox album". The parameters related to songwriting, like "lyricist
" and "writer
"... well, that depends on whoever wrote all songs of an album. However, having a bunch of names of writers/lyrists/composers in a merged infobox about an album would result cluster. Imagine an infobox about a Chinese album, like
dandan youqing, and you'll get the message. (Note that I don't use "Track listing" template there due to Chinese characters there.)
Also, switching between any other type and "album
"/"EP
" in the "Type" parameter may seem simple, but the "Type" parameter in the merged infobox would require more coding to control the formatting of titles, i.e. italicization of titles. BTW, I asked
how personal opinions in lieu of applicable rules may influence consensus, and I received insightful responses, especially ones about using "common sense".
George Ho (
talk)
21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
if X then Y
is one of the simplest features any coder can implement, so I don't see why that matters. (Sorry for not responding to anything else you wrote, but it seems to be a repetition of
points about functionality that I've already responded to repeatedly.)--
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)|Type=
switch code would actually look like.--
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Rubber Soul (post-merge Infobox song) (subject to change) |
Rubber Soul (Infobox album) | Rubber Soul (Infobox song) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
This is (roughly) what the post-merge template documentation would look like.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
DocumentationWP articles about sound recordings often include an infobox, which provides key facts as discussed in the article. Template:Infobox musical composition and Template:Infobox anthem are also available for other uses. The code below can be copied and completed with information pertaining to sound recording articles (i.e: albums, tracks, or singles). CodeMost articles will not need all the following fields; unused fields may be left blank. Please note that adding fields other than those below, such as Example usage 1 - Albums/EPs{{Infobox sound recording <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums --> | name = | type = | artist = | cover = | alt = | released = <!-- {{Start date|||}} --> | recorded = | venue = | studio = | genre = <!-- Do not add unsourced genres --> | length = <!-- {{Duration|m=|s=}} --> | label = | producer = | prev_title = | prev_year = | next_title = | next_year = }} Example usage 2 - Songs/Singles{{Infobox sound recording <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs --> | name = | cover = <!-- Just the file name --> | alt = | caption = | type = | artist = | album = | released = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --> | recorded = | studio = | venue = | genre = <!-- Do not add unsourced genres --> | length = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} --> | label = | writer = | producer = | prev_title = | prev_year = | next_title = | next_year = | misc = }} |
Unless anyone has objections, the uppercase parameters in transclusions of {{
Infobox single}}/{{
Infobox song}} (except |ISWC=
, |A-side=
and |B-side=
) are to be changed to their lowercase counterparts by a bot per
MOS:INFOBOX, which states that parameter names should use lower-case unless they are proper nouns
; see
WP:BOTREQ#Parameter titles. This is to be done as part of the merger of the two templates, discussed here earlier.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
07:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
When it should be used? When the artist release a single on itunes and not to radio, or when they release album tracks ahead of the album release? I don't get the concept, and the media never uses that phrase. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Archive 17/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Songs.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Songs, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
When a song is familiar (and parodied) enough for a parody to be published in a notable source, how should the existence of parodies be mentioned in the song's article? Examples: an especially memorable parody of " There's a Long Long Trail A-Winding" (There's a long long nail a-grinding into the heel of my shoe...) is in my copy of Rise Up Singing, and an Americanized version of " The Road to the Isles" is in that same songbook as well as being featured in Julie (George novel). Can you refer me to guidelines, or at least good examples of how to deal well with parodies? -- Egmonster ( talk) 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Ojorojo,
X201,
JJMC89,
George Ho,
Ilovetopaint, and
JG66: There are a lot of transclusions of {{
Infobox single}} which have turned up in
Category:Errors reported by Module String (about 1,100, although many of those should be fine now but haven't been updated). Most of these are due to formatting or other errors in the chronology parameters, such as missing quotation marks, missing line breaks before year, missing brackets for year, missing year and having two or more separate singles (not a double A-side) in a parameter. Some of those are due to there being brackets after the song title containing extra information (e.g. "(re-release)", "(with Paul McCartney)"). I'm not sure whether those should be removed, whether re-releases should be counted and so on. Help would be appreciated. (If necessary, the template can always be reverted back to the previous version, although I do think it's better to fix the errors first.)
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
![]() ![]() |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 10:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The images of Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song) are taken to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 1#Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song), where I invite you to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is relisted into Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 21#Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song). You can comment there while the discussion is still ongoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. I started Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HIStory/Ghosts/1, a GA reassessment on HIStory/Ghosts. Feel free to improve the article and/or comment at the community GAR. Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Ojorojo:, @ JG66: If a song article includes a list of cover versions—without any other disucssion—do the covers need to meet the requirements of WP:COVERSONG to be included? The policy reads as though it applies to discussions, and not lists. Is a list assumed to be a form of discussion, or an implied discussion? Tapered ( talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In past discussions, I don't recall COVERSONG only being applied to text or separate sections within the article. WP articles should provide encyclopedic content and not an indiscriminate collection of information. COVERSONG is an attempt to define what is noteworthy. Seemingly random lists of artists who recorded a particular song may overwhelm articles (particularly those with dozens or hundreds of covers) and detract from the proper focus on the song itself. Renditions should be limited to notable artists and be able to provide more than a name: date, singles chart info, album name, awards, etc. Ideally, they should referenced to a discussion of the rendition in a reliable source and not from a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, such as an album track listing or a general song search at AllMusic or Discogs. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC) This is how I've always handled things too - I only include cover versions from notable artists that can be sourced with a third party source, and trim out any others. Even outside of WP:COVERSONG, that's a pretty commonly used inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The removed bullet point list (three of the versions were actually referenced) was of value because it illustrated the variety of artists—rockers, bluesmen, rappers, and points between—who've recorded the song. If it wouldn't be original research to write, "The song has been covered by a wide variety of artists, rockers Alex Chilton...etc" perhaps that or something similar could be included. In any event, the idea is to somehow illustrate variety. To sum up, deleting the bullet list removed what seems to me useful info from the article. Personally, I don't like the length of the list, but all the artists removed on 5 June were notable, while most were, indeed, unsourced. Tapered ( talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where else to discuss this, so I'll just post here and see what happens. Very often, when viewing a category for songs by a particular artist, you will see genre categories. For example, Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:Electropop songs. But not all of the songs in the Lady Gaga category are electropop songs. Certainly " The Lady Is a Tramp" isn't electropop.
This seems to be very common, though, associating songs by an artist with a one or more specific genres (other examples: Category:Amy Winehouse songs, Category:Rihanna songs). We hold a strict standard to articles about individual songs, placing genres in Template:Infobox single/ Template:Infobox song only when a reliable source confirms a specific genre or genres, yet we don't hold this standard to categories. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Any suggestions for how to move forward or get additional input from more editors? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the above: categorization of categories does not have to be as specific as by article. Imagine looking in Category:Reggae albums by Jamaican artists and not seeing the Bob Marley category! Some artists almost exclusively work in one idiom and then have a one-off album in another genre (e.g. electronic music artist Moby with the hardcore punk Animal Rights). In those cases, categorize the artist by the most typical genre or subgenre and the specific album by a more specific and accurate category. Imagine the chaos of having to sort through every single article of over 200,000 in over 18,000 artist categories and taking out individual articles... This is a huge scope of work for virtually no benefit and it would end up flooding certain categories with hundreds of articles instead of having a few subcategories. E.g. Isn't it better if Category:Hard rock albums by Australian artists has Category:AC/DC albums in it rather than every individual AC/DC album? That's the entire purpose of this category structure in the first place. I have to admit, the very idea of taking Category:Led Zeppelin albums out of Category:Hard rock albums by English artists just because Led Zeppelin III is a more mellow folk-rock album is ridiculous to me. I don't think you guys are thinking this through nor do you understand that the guidelines for categorizing an article are different and more stringent than for a category and for good reason. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As a starting point, wouldn't it be better to clarify WP:SONGS#Categories to reflect something like:
"Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category:<Artist name> songs" has not been added to this genre category.
The larger issue still needs some consideration, but meanwhile some of the current problems can be remedied. Propose to change WP:SONG#Categories as follows:
Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable: ...
- 5. Other than Category:Songs by artist, "Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into at least two other subcategories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by country and one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre,
but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs.Notes: ...
4. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category:<Artist name> songs" has not been added to this genre category.
If there are no objections, I'll add this. — Ojorojo ( talk) 17:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this change, as Led Zeppelin is NOT limited to hard rock, but is also known for blues rock, folk rock and heavy metal (see main article, in the infobox). Synthwave.94 ( talk) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, and I share Another Believer's sentiments about this system of categorization. I've always seen edits like this to be completely ridiculous. One idea that came to mind is to follow the model of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups. As we see with ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Maroon 5, it is categorized under ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musical groups, but not ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:American musical groups—that's left for the categorization of the article. We can apply the same principle, for example, to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Lady Gaga songs: categorized under ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia categories named after electropop songs (or something to that effect, preferably less ugly and more succinct), but not ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Electropop songs, which will be left to the articles. Thoughts? ℯ xplicit 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there another place to raise this issue? I'd hate to see this conversation stall. RfC? Not sure how to proceed to get more community discussion. @ Walter Görlitz, Michig, Izno, Ojorojo, Koavf, Synthwave.94, and Explicit: Pinging you all as contributors to this section. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about whether to include a petition started by Elijah Daniel in the article about him, which was a White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem.
You may comment, if you wish, at: Talk:Elijah_Daniel#RfC_about_White_House_petition_to_make_Party_in_the_USA_the_national_anthem.
Sagecandor ( talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The parent company of AllMusic was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Media Network. Cunard ( talk) 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Hands (Mike Perry song)#Artist credits.
nyuszika7h (
talk)
15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Dutch certification entry – removal or not? about what to do about the template parameter for Dutch certifications. The official NVPI website which used to show all the Dutch certifications has been inactive now for almost two years, and the 400 or so song and album articles that use this template now just link to a series of pop-up ads when you click on the citation, which probably isn't good for Wikipedia or anybody's computer or mobile device. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Another editor will not accept my reference for who plays on the original, or at least Bobby Day's version and then insists on calling the genre Bubblegum pop, a genre that was not even invented until a decade after the song was recorded. I'd rather not have an edit war so if a few folks would stop on by, that would be great. If you really agree with him (it's got to be a guy) then so be it. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Before I tried to edit the page, another writer had listed 12 of 25 song titles that are part of the lyrics of the song "Song for Another Time" by Old Dominion.
I tried to add the other 13 song titles to the page. I typed it out and inserted it, but someone deleted my addition along with the original listing stating names of people required citations. It is not a list of people. It is a list of song titles and the singers or bands which recorded them, many of which (maybe all) are already listed in other Wikipedia pages.
Can the actual lyrics be inserted in the page for this song? The lyrics are the citation which document that the song titles in the list below are in the song. If I am not permitted to list the singers names, can I list the song titles without the singers names, and state that the song lyrics may contain these song titles?
Please tell me if I am allowed to add the following information about a song to the page for "Song for Another Time" by Old Dominion:
The lyrics cleverly include approximately 25 song titles by other singers, bands. Song titles listed in order as they appear in Song for Another Time: 1. Right Now - Van Halen 2. Marina del Rey by George Strait 3. This Time Tomorrow - The Kinks or Ray Davies featuring Mumford & Sons
4. Yesterday - The Beatles (Paul McCartney) 5. Sunshine - Keane 6. I Can’t Make You Love Me - Bonnie Raitt
7. Brown Eyed Girl - Van Morrison 8. Sweet Caroline - Neil Diamond 9. Free Fallin’ - Tom Petty 10. Small Town Saturday Night - Hal Ketchum
Before you lose that Lovin’ Feelin’ = 11. You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling by The Righteous Brothers. The lyrics are actually lovin’ feelin’ in both songs.
12. Dancing on the Ceiling - Lionel Ritchie 13. Teenage Dream - Katy Perry 14. Paradise City by Guns and Roses 15. I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry- Hank Williams 16. One More Day - Diamond Rio 17. What Do You Say - Reba McEntire 18. Pretty Woman - Roy Orbison 19. Sunday Morning Coming Down - Johnny Cash (written by Kris Kristofferson) 20. Drive - The Cars 21. Country Road - James Taylor 22. Pink Houses - John Mellencamp
23. Candle in the Wind - Elton John
24. Always on My Mind - Elvis Presley 1972, and Willie Nelson 1982
25. I Will Always Love You - Whitney Houston
or please tell me why this list cannot be added. Thank you breeze2u Breeze2u ( talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hiya, Wikipedians!
I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album. Another editor has reverted several of these edits. I made revisions based on his comments but these changes were reverted also. I do not agree with - and, in at least one instance, do not understand the objections given. Rather than get into an edit war I decided to bring the issue here.
The other editor initially objected that the references I had added were not notable. I felt that a band that is a Grammy award-winning member of the Grand Ole Opry and an album that has received national press coverage (Rolling Stone, The New Yorker) was at least as notable as the often obscure recordings already mentioned in these particular articles. The other party agreed with that observation, but then argued that the real reason for reverting was to avoid "endless lists of covers." Few, if any, of these articles mentioned more than a handful of covers - none were at risk of being overwhelmed by endless lists. And I felt that removing only a single entry, simply because it was the one most recently added, was highly arbitrary. Then the reason appeared to become that tribute albums are inherently not notable - another arbitrary decision - and I pointed out that many of the remaining entries were also for songs from tribute albums, some by major performers. And I was particularly confused by his citation of wikipedia policies that seemed to deal with the creation of stand-alone articles rather than additions to existing articles, as none of these edits had created a new, stand-alone article.
This individual seemed to consider it to be a challenge or personal affront that I disagreed with him - this would be borne out by a review of our dialog on his talk page. His most recent response was to remove ALL mentions of cover versions in several of these articles - which seems to me to be based on spite rather than a desire for editorial consistency. In other words..."I'll show you...."
If the determination is indeed that there should be NO mention of ANY cover versions of these songs, so be it - maybe that's better than arbitrary omissions. I'm completely in favor of consistency. But I personally think that that information adds to a reader's understanding of the song's cultural impact - and also that completely removing that information, rather than considering the addition of an item to the list, is a questionable decision. If you're going to remove entire sections from multiple articles, do it because it's the right editorial decision, NOT because you want to spite another editor.
Thanks for your thoughts. PurpleChez ( talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The Coolies did an album in 1986 consisting mostly of Simon & Garfunkel covers. I was in the process of adding this fact to the "Covers" section of the articles on each of these songs, however, Sundayclose began following me, and undoing these edits. Rather than getting in an edit war, I figured I'd leave it to the masses. DB Records, The Coolies, is it worthy of mention in the articles for these songs?
For Number 1 to Infinity (residency show) please. Legs 3 and 5. — Calvin999 08:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't even have an importance rating, but, well, there's the obvious irony.
-- Cprice45 ( talk) 23:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The following is a request from my talkpage. I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:-
Could you do what is necessary to change the redirect from Roll with the Punches away from Two (Lenka album)? There is also a Dawes song and now a Van Morrison album with the same title. Thank you for your help. I don't know how to do it.
I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:--- Richhoncho ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've been doing some cleanup of tracklist templates and wanted to check regarding song titles. Not the titles of articles about songs, but the titles of the songs themselves, as they appear in double quotes.
(dance remix)or
(acoustic version), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note?
(Intro)or
(Interlude), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note to its function on the recording?
It seems pretty obvious to me but at least one editor disagrees and I felt I should get additional opinions. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
From MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:MINORWORK:
Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work.
Given that singles may consist of more than one track and thus be considered a "major work", this guideline contradicts WP:MOSMUSIC
In popular music, album, mixtape and EP titles should be italicized and song and single titles should be in quotes
For example, "Fickle Cycle" from Grass (or "Grass"?) is not really a single nor a B-side, it's simply a track from a single. So shouldn't we be italicizing singles? I don't mean to italicize songs that were released as singles, but rather in cases like Grass, where we're explicitly referring to the entire release. Obviously this all ties further into the above RfC.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect: | The single Good Vibrations was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Correct: | The song "Good Vibrations" was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Incorrect?: | "Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Correct: | Good Vibrations was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Correct?: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the Good Vibrations single |
Correct?: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single |
Correct: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations |
Correct?: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile" |
I have to unarchive this from the most recent archive page, because it's closed with a lot of wrong advice (wrong from a WP/MOS perspective, and from that of other style guides, and basic logic, and independent reliable sources on music and record collecting). Short version at end; most of this is analysis and background. The overall view given above is misinterpreting the italics versus quotes relationship. It's not strictly "main work versus sub-work" at all. Italics are used for "major works", in a very vague sense, which includes novellas, operettas, small paintings, epic poems, short films, etc. – all rather short works in comparison to average novels, operas, larger artworks, collected volumes of poetry, feature films and TV series, etc. Quotation marks are used for "minor works", and they do not have to be sub-works of something else. If I write a song called "My Chicken Can Run Faster'n Yours" and never record it, so it is never a sub-work on an album or other release, it still gets quotation marks.
Next, people get EPs and singles mixed up, a lot, even within the industry, because the meaning has shifted over time. If you follow the nomenclature in music collector publications, comprehensive discographies, and other such works that are modern, a general consensus definition emerges that an EP is a "mini-album" with a discrete title of its own, and no fixed number of tracks, but it'll probably be considered an EP if the overall length is roughly 50% or less than of a typical album, and it's not mostly or entirely variants of the same track, nor a larger-format (e.g. 10″ or 12″) version of a 7″. Some EPs only have two tracks (e.g. Licht und Blindheit by Joy Division), and some people like to classify those as singles, regardless of artistic or label intent (that's a form of WP:OR). When the term originated, it meant an "extended play" version of a single, but this meaning is pretty much dead.
In modern terms, it's definitely a single if a) it's a pre-release of a song from an upcoming album, usually with another track or two or three; it's a re-release of a song on a current or recent album, usually with one or more additional tracks, c) it's a release of a song that isn't on or planned to be on an album at all, usually with one+ addl. tracks (and doesn't have a unique name, but is named for one of the included tracks). The additional tracks may be album tracks, or previously unreleased, or live cuts, or remixes. What makes it a single not an EP is it being named after the "A-side" (usually), or not having a name and just being something like "Good Vibrations"/"Let's Go Away for a While" on the labels (for media with such labels). People will argue about much later re-releases of material from an old album as new singles vs. EPs, with different people preferring a different classifier. The most consistent approach is to treat them as singles, unless they have a title that isn't a repeat of one of the song names, have "EP" in the title, or are consistently marketed as EPs, usually with some new content on them, that isn't just remixes of the title track, or previously released tracks. Regardless of that kerfuffle, a single can be multiple discs; I've seen some that were four discs with dozens of mixes of the same track and maybe one or a couple of other tracks, and pretty much no one calls them EPs.
Moving on, '"Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as ...' has as its subject a song title, so that gets quotes. A corrected table looks like this:
Incorrect: | The single Good Vibrations was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Correct: | The song "Good Vibrations" was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love |
Technically Correct, but rather confusing: |
"Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Incorrect, and both confusing and confused: |
Good Vibrations was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks |
Much clearer: | In 2006, the EP Good Vibrations: 40th Anniversary Edition was released, with various versions of the title song and an additional track if it really qualifies as an EP (which some will argue it does) |
Also clearer alternative: |
"Good Vibrations" was re-released as a new single in 2006 with various versions of the title song and an additional track if consensus agrees it's not really an EP |
Incorrect: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the Good Vibrations single |
Correct: | "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single |
Incorrect: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations |
Technically correct but rather redundant: |
(in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" |
Correct: | (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile" a more complete reference of a very specific release |
Part of the confusion in the original table seems to be a supposition along the lines "if something is in quotation marks then the other something it was published within must be in italics." Just not true. It'll be true of articles in a periodical and chapters in book – and songs on an album. It's not true of chapters that have subchapters (both "levels" get quotation marks), "epic" songs with multiple named movements (they both get quotation marks; some examples are Rush's "2012" on the album 2012, and Kate Bush's "The Ninth Wave" on Hounds of Love, not to be confused with the single "Hounds of Love", released in four versions with different B-sides), or a TV show episode with a title and several individually titled segments - all quotation marks again, with the series in italics. Similarly, two different "levels" of works can both be in italics, e.g. Michael Moorcock's novel The Jewel in the Skull and four others were republished in the single-vol. The History of the Runestaff; see also Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring as a stand-alone book and The Lord of the Rings as the complete work (though series/franchises do not take italics or quotation marks, except where the oeuvre as a whole is named after one of the constituent works, thus the Marvel Cinematic Universe but the Star Wars Expanded Universe). In short, there is no – and cannot be – any "only one thing can be italicized and one thing in quotes" rule, because works do not come in only two levels of titles.
Short version: Don't overcomplicate things. Albums and EPs get italics, songs and singles (including 12-inchers, maxi-singles, and multi-CD single packs) get quotation marks. Never waver from this pattern, and disputation will dissipate, being reserved for cases where the real world disagrees, e.g. about whether Licht und Blindheit is an EP or a single. Lean toward EP, since it isn't named after any song on it.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
02:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in the ongoing deletion discussion about Fiona Apple's protest song " Tiny Hands" for the 2017 Women's March at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Hands. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There is an ongoing debate on the criteria for the one-hit wonders in America listings over here at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria. It'd be nice if we could get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan ( talk) 05:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ceryfication source doesnt works. Eurohunter ( talk) 10:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If you're interested in the topic, your comments would be appreciated at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria where there is a discussion with sweeping ramifications about whether the "one-hit wonder" articles will be based on charting songs or on artists described in sources. Binksternet ( talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Replacement of the Discogs sources by iTunes or other shop is it positive and correct move? Is there a list It contains potential (common) banned sources? Eurohunter ( talk) 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw this wikiepdia article for songwriter Kyle West, my dad. /info/en/?search=Category:Songs_written_by_Kyle_West But can't seem to link his 50 or so songwriter and producer credits here on wikipedia either. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/kyle-west-mn0000107983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsfan4ever ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)