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. |
There is a discussion on the reliability of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Genius.com. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ALBUMS which would also impact this Wikiproject. Please feel free to join us there to discuss whether a song or album charting in a specific genre chart qualifies that genre to be listed in the infobox. dannymusiceditor oops 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit a discussion re: categorizing all songs by an artist as any specific genre. I say we should not group all songs by an artist by genre, especially when song articles require sourcing specifically describing the song's genre(s). To group all songs by an artist as a specific genre is inaccurate and unfair.
For example, just today, User:MagicatthemovieS removed Category:Synthpop songs from " Sexxx Dreams" because Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:American synthpop songs. MagicatthemovieS did nothing wrong here in terms of how categories are intended to be used, but are we seriously suggesting all songs by Lady Gaga are synthpop? Many, many Lady Gaga songs would never be considered synthpop, or even pop in general. How is this helpful or accurate?
To recap, I started this discussion back in April 2017. The discussion generated some helpful feedback, and User:koavf strongly opposed changes to the current format, but overall I believe editors were supportive of not grouping all songs by an artist by genre. I try not to put words in folks' mouths, but here is a summary:
I've linked to editors' names so they will be notified of this discussion. Please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions.
I revisited this discussion in May 2018, which also generated some good discussion.
Again, please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions, or feel free to clarify your thoughts here. I also submitted an RfC, hoping to get additional feedback from editors who may not watchlist WikiProject Songs. Only User:Doniago weighed in, and said they were not in favor of "pigeonholing artists into genres, with the possible exception of situations in which all of their notable works really do belong to a single genre".
Do any other editors care to weigh in here? There seem to be a few editors who are opposed to changing the current category structure, but more editors in favor of ending the practice of labeling all songs by an artist as a specific genre. I will ask again, Should we continue categorizing all songs by an artist by genre?, and are there ways to get this discussion seen by a larger audience than just WikiProject Songs? Clearly, my attempt at RfC was not successful last time.
I'm hoping we can hear from other people and not just rehash the same arguments by the same people, as the previous discussions already show their opinions. I also welcome previous participants to share if their thoughts have changed at all. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Disclosure: I've posted a message at village pump seeking additional editor input. I've tried to be neutral in my overview of this discussion so far, and I'm hoping some editors outside WP:Songs will contribute. I'm pleased to see so many comments here so quickly, but so far we've heard many of the same voices. Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Since no one else has commented in more than a week, I've posted a similar note at the administrators' noticeboard. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
So someone just edited this just to keep this from archiving. Was that really necessary? There hasn’t been a comment all month, and March is almost over. Things are looking pretty stale. Please make a request for an unrelated editor to make a close (not that a consensus is likely to be found in this mess) or let this be archived. Because it’s clearly not going anywhere anymore. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
For purposes of the {{ infobox_song}} template (which designates singles and songs as different colors), are B-sides considered singles? I'm also wondering if a B-side to a single should have the previous/next singles chronology in the infobox that shows which singles were released immediately before/after. Thanks. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Multiple IPs have changed the classification for Youth (Shawn Mendes song) from single to promotional single. Are there sources that confirm that the song was or wasn't a single? ET Canada's article contains the word "single", this iHeart station's article indicates that it probably was released as a single while also avoiding usage of the word "single", a music video was released, and the song charted in about 23 countries. I don't know if the song was released to radio. Jc86035 ( talk) 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What does the project think about categorizing songs by artist for acts who contributed significant backing vocals, whether credited or not but not as a "featuring" artist? There are a number of examples, but JGabbard is very insistent that articles for the songs Magnet and Steel and Gold (John Stewart song) be categorized as Stevie Nicks songs and the songs Whatever Gets You thru the Night and Bad Blood (Neil Sedaka song) as Elton John songs because of those artists respective contributions. This practice could be applied to many other songs then, but where should the delineation be if done this way? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 02:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Three different versions of Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini have gone number 1 (2 in 1960 and 1 in 1990). The version listed at List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1990s is not even shown in peak position box for various countries and the one listed at List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1960 is shown in two different peak position boxes. It is unclear to me why some countries are in one peak position box and others are shown in a different one down below.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sledgehammer (Fifth Harmony song) was nominated for GA a while ago. The original reviewer abandoned it so I eventually took over. Now the nominator does not appear to be very active. It has been open a long time so I would like to resolve it. If anyone is willing to respond to my comments at Talk:Sledgehammer (Fifth Harmony song)/GA3 that would be great. Otherwise I will probably give it another week or so and then fail it. AIRcorn (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Although the song has a separate entry at " The Loveliest Night of the Year", the discussion at Talk:Sobre las Olas#Requested move 9 March 2019 may still be of interest. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Basic question: should the titles of song articles be italicised, like I did here Treat Her Right (Sawyer Brown song), or does that not conform to the standard? Thanks, Silas Stoat ( talk) 20:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There is many options like same/different instrumental, same/different lyrics and same/different title. How to determine if certain song should be classified as different song in the list of songs? Eurohunter ( talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason that all titles capitalised? Spanish version don't capitalises them. Eurohunter ( talk) 12:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Wiwibloggs (wiwibloggs.com) and Eurovix (eurovix.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in this RfC regarding the categorization of all works by an artist by genre.
Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of The Singles Jukebox (thesinglesjukebox.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Singles Jukebox. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi WP:Songs! Requesting additional editor participation at three Bhad Bhabie singles nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gucci Flip Flops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi Bich, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Heaux. Two of them have been relisted. Thank you! Leviv ich 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Giant Steps (composition) was just moved to [[:Giant Steps (jazz standard)] and the infobox was modified so that the type is not Jazz standard. The first problem is that the only "source" for it being a standard does not appear to be a reliable one ( http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions-2/giantsteps.htm). The second is that jazz standard is not a type that is supported at the template. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Some time back, MetroLyrics stopped using the "LF" (LyricsFind logo) to designate lyrics pages that were "official" or licensed. Now, one needs to click on the "edit lyrics" in the upper right of the ML lyrics page to see if the lyrics are "locked" and display the message "The lyrics to this song are deemed official and accurate, and are subsequently locked. If you feel there is an error, feel free to submit your correction to Musixmatch". [7] However, by clicking on "Musixmatch" and connecting to its lyrics pages, it if often unclear if the lyrics are verified or can be considered "official and accurate".
According to a Musixmatch support page, "In order to assure a standard of quality, Musixmatch shows the quality status of the lyrics." [8] These are designated "Lyrics verified by Musixmatch", "Lyrics verified by Curator" (like an admin), "Lyrics verified by the community", and "Lyrics verified by Artist". However, only a fraction of its lyrics pages show any of these designations.
For example, out of the 64 song WP:Featured Articles, 32 have links to MetroLyrics. Almost of the ML pages link to the corresponding Musixmatch lyrics pages:
So out of 32 MetroLyrics linked FAs, 27 (84%) don't appear to have anything to back up identifying them as "official and accurate". Rather, it is hard to see that these are better than lyrics from other open wiki-type lyrics sites. Should these be treated as WP:User-generated content?
Additionally, it is puzzling why Musixmatch must rely on users to supply its lyrics. If in deed it "is the largest lyrics platform allowed for worldwide licensing with deals with top Music Publishers as Warner Chappel, Universal Bmg, Emi Publishing, Sony ATV, Bmg Rights, Kobalt Music and much more", [12] shouldn't it have access to professionally-run data bases? — Ojorojo ( talk) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia policy, please do not link to websites that are in violation of the artist's own copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works.
Even when using licensed websites, care must be taken to only link songs which are properly licensed, such MetroLyrics entries that are "locked" (unable to be edited by users).If there is a question regarding the licensing or accuracy of the information, including songwriter credits, please do not add a link. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.
Starting in 2015, I have made several improvements to Go Your Own Way with the goal of bringing it up the quality scale. If someone could check the song against the B class criteria, that would be greatly appreciated! Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is anyone able to provide referencing assistance at King of Spain (song)? The article's lacked sources since 2009. That really needs to change. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 13:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Antville Music Video Award doesn't seems to be notable award ( comments from 2016). It's included only in few lists but also in FL one. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute happening at I Promise (Radiohead song) about whether to include information about the type of bus included in the music video. Another opinion would be appreciated. Popcornduff ( talk) 02:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Berlin Music Video Award notable award worth to mention in the article? Winner of Best Music Video is granted €3,000. Eurohunter ( talk) 14:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't UK Singles Chart and each country list has lists like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2018 or List of number-one hits of 2018 (Denmark)? Eurohunter ( talk) 22:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've been watching this and have stayed out, but when there's a suggestion that "most or almost all countries schould have their 'top'", I see a problem. We only write articles about notable subjects. The number one song in most nations isn't much different from the number one in other nations. If the only source is the chart itself, I don't see the need for an article about it, and a list of the tops isn't warranted either. When secondary sources discuss it in more than just a WP:ROUTINE way, we should take notice, otherwise we should not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 2#RfC: Rota may be of interest to this project. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently came across some odd errors in the Billboard database. It displays data for streaming charts before those charts even existed. For example, I found that it shows a song charted on "R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs" as far back as 2000, well before there were any commercial streaming services. You can see my full post about it here, on the talk page of Wikipedia:Record charts. If you know anything about this issue, feel free to weigh in. This issue involves Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums too, so I've brought it up there as well. — BLZ · talk 20:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see this thread about the new charts planned by the above publications, and please give your views about whether either or both charts should be included in future articles. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon has closed the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre. IMO, this means we should not be adding genre categories to categories like Category:Lady Gaga albums or Category:Lady Gaga songs. In past discussions, some editors took issue with this. I am wondering, how can we move forward, or what changes need to be made to song categories on a mass scale? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz, Michig, Ojorojo, Explicit, Synthwave.94, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Richhoncho, SNUGGUMS, Kokoro20, Bondegezou, Postdlf, Doniago, Sergecross73, and Koavf: Pinging you all as part discussion participants. Any thoughts for moving forward with the RfC in mind? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I rarely look at cats, but if they're really needed, we don't need to have Category:Pop albums by American artists and Category:Pop songs by American artists, when we can have Category:Pop music works by American artists. While that makes it bigger, it also affords more opportunity for sub-categories whether by artist ( Category:Pop music works by Meghan Trainor) or be region ( Category:Pop music works artists from Colorado). And of course, this means potentially thousands of additional categories, it will make classification more precise. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Any updates needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Categories given the RfC result? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
These would need to be changed:
one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the song's genre(s) has a cited reliable source in the article.
For example ... while Category:The Temptations songs is in Category:Songs by artist, Category:American songs, Category:Motown singles and Category:Rhythm and blues songs.
Notes:
— Ojorojo ( talk) 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this has been raised a couple of time in the last two years or so, either here or at Template talk:Infobox song ... I've long been confused about how to apply the "type=" guidance to songs from the 1960s, typically those by UK acts that found success in the US. Those were the two major markets, UK and US, and the US record company often had a quite different release schedule due to the preference for shorter LPs, the practice of including hit singles on LPs (where in the UK, I gather, it was seen as conning record buyers), and of releasing more singles than in the UK. With the Beatles, even though their discography is probably the most widely covered of any artist (which, you'd think, would make basic release information and designation a doddle), it becomes impossible to accurately reflect their release history within the model Wikipedia provides. I appreciate the guidance states: If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. – but I don't believe the situation's as clear cut as that.
What currently happens in many of the song articles is we have two infoboxes. Although "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" is not the result of the UK vs US issue, it's a good example of how unsightly the page can become. "Nowhere Man" is an example of the issue I'm talking about.
The real problem comes about through the stipulation that a single is distinct from a song, because this invariably ends up favouring the US version of the band's catalogue. For instance, the Beatles' cover of "Matchbox" was recorded for and first released on their Long Tall Sally EP. In the US, the song was instead included on an album cobbled together by Capitol, Something New, and then issued on a single, and peaked inside the top 20 on Billboard. So it would seem the single release is the most notable; in which case, the infobox would carry the description "Song by the Beatles from the album Something New. (The single had nothing to do with the UK EP, in that it took place in another market.) In that way, the song's place in the band's "correct" catalogue is not represented at all. It's the same for "Nowhere Man": a key track on Rubber Soul, yet the infobox guidance suggests that it be defined as a US single – and from another Capitol carve-up, Yesterday and Today, rather than Rubber Soul, the album most readers would expect to it "from".
So, I'm wondering, how about allowing for dual releases in the one infobox by removing any text from the "from=" parameter? Examples for "Matchbox" and "Nowhere Man" to the right.
"Matchbox" | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Song by the Beatles | ||||
Released |
| |||
Recorded | June 1, 1964 | |||
Genre | Rock | |||
Length | 1:57 | |||
Label | Parlophone (UK), Capitol (US) | |||
Songwriter(s) | Carl Perkins | |||
Producer(s) | George Martin | |||
The Beatles US singles chronology | ||||
|
Taking it a step further, I seem to remember someone raising the question of us abandoning any differentiation between "song" and "single". Is that something other editors would consider? – because it would certainly help with the issue I'm talking about. My thinking is that a single is relevant only in terms of release format – ie, as distinct from an EP or album – because the subject of each article (certainly in the case of the Beatles) is only the song, as each side of the single has its own song article. You'll notice there's no B-side named in either of those example infoboxes. That's because I don't feel it's necessary – the B-side doesn't define the song, and sometimes there are several choices of B-side depending on the country – also because the template lists them first, above Released.
I appreciate that the majority of editors probably don't encounter these issues at all. But from what I've seen, it is a problem area in song articles for not just the Beatles, but also their contemporaries such as the Stones, Donovan, the Hollies, Small Faces ... JG66 ( talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd, a dutch language version of the Van Morrison song Have I Told You Lately. Merge proposal under WP:NSONGS is on Talk:Have I Told You Lately, but there is discussion on both talk pages. Anybody feel like commenting? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't years 1953-1992 be moved to "List of number-one singles"? They include only singles. Eurohunter ( talk) 14:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It's seems to be the best place to discuss about music due to lack of activity on other WikiProjects dedicated to music. So definition of this article says it's collection named "UK Music Charts". I think such collection doesn't exists, name is a mistification and this article is just a summary for British charts. I suggest to rename it atleast to "UK music charts" but I think it should be "British music charts". Unfortunatelly "UK Music Charts" has been ompied by other language versions so it will be hard to fix it all. Eurohunter ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I am an Italian user and I observe that a lot of stranger songs (in particular Italian songs) haven't a page on this Wikipedia. Which are the rules you use for understand if a page is encyclopedic or not? -- Mice ( talk) 11:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Identity Theory on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is Identity Theory an RS?. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
On Panini (song)#Release history, there is a small table of releases. I assume this is like the equivalent at WP:ALBUM, where release formats (cassette, digital streaming, LP, etc.) are listed but this includes a radio format. What is the purpose of this table in a song article? Is there something I'm misunderstanding? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
13:56, 4 July 2019 (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. |
There is a discussion on the reliability of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Genius.com. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ALBUMS which would also impact this Wikiproject. Please feel free to join us there to discuss whether a song or album charting in a specific genre chart qualifies that genre to be listed in the infobox. dannymusiceditor oops 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit a discussion re: categorizing all songs by an artist as any specific genre. I say we should not group all songs by an artist by genre, especially when song articles require sourcing specifically describing the song's genre(s). To group all songs by an artist as a specific genre is inaccurate and unfair.
For example, just today, User:MagicatthemovieS removed Category:Synthpop songs from " Sexxx Dreams" because Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:American synthpop songs. MagicatthemovieS did nothing wrong here in terms of how categories are intended to be used, but are we seriously suggesting all songs by Lady Gaga are synthpop? Many, many Lady Gaga songs would never be considered synthpop, or even pop in general. How is this helpful or accurate?
To recap, I started this discussion back in April 2017. The discussion generated some helpful feedback, and User:koavf strongly opposed changes to the current format, but overall I believe editors were supportive of not grouping all songs by an artist by genre. I try not to put words in folks' mouths, but here is a summary:
I've linked to editors' names so they will be notified of this discussion. Please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions.
I revisited this discussion in May 2018, which also generated some good discussion.
Again, please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions, or feel free to clarify your thoughts here. I also submitted an RfC, hoping to get additional feedback from editors who may not watchlist WikiProject Songs. Only User:Doniago weighed in, and said they were not in favor of "pigeonholing artists into genres, with the possible exception of situations in which all of their notable works really do belong to a single genre".
Do any other editors care to weigh in here? There seem to be a few editors who are opposed to changing the current category structure, but more editors in favor of ending the practice of labeling all songs by an artist as a specific genre. I will ask again, Should we continue categorizing all songs by an artist by genre?, and are there ways to get this discussion seen by a larger audience than just WikiProject Songs? Clearly, my attempt at RfC was not successful last time.
I'm hoping we can hear from other people and not just rehash the same arguments by the same people, as the previous discussions already show their opinions. I also welcome previous participants to share if their thoughts have changed at all. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Disclosure: I've posted a message at village pump seeking additional editor input. I've tried to be neutral in my overview of this discussion so far, and I'm hoping some editors outside WP:Songs will contribute. I'm pleased to see so many comments here so quickly, but so far we've heard many of the same voices. Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Since no one else has commented in more than a week, I've posted a similar note at the administrators' noticeboard. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
So someone just edited this just to keep this from archiving. Was that really necessary? There hasn’t been a comment all month, and March is almost over. Things are looking pretty stale. Please make a request for an unrelated editor to make a close (not that a consensus is likely to be found in this mess) or let this be archived. Because it’s clearly not going anywhere anymore. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
For purposes of the {{ infobox_song}} template (which designates singles and songs as different colors), are B-sides considered singles? I'm also wondering if a B-side to a single should have the previous/next singles chronology in the infobox that shows which singles were released immediately before/after. Thanks. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Multiple IPs have changed the classification for Youth (Shawn Mendes song) from single to promotional single. Are there sources that confirm that the song was or wasn't a single? ET Canada's article contains the word "single", this iHeart station's article indicates that it probably was released as a single while also avoiding usage of the word "single", a music video was released, and the song charted in about 23 countries. I don't know if the song was released to radio. Jc86035 ( talk) 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What does the project think about categorizing songs by artist for acts who contributed significant backing vocals, whether credited or not but not as a "featuring" artist? There are a number of examples, but JGabbard is very insistent that articles for the songs Magnet and Steel and Gold (John Stewart song) be categorized as Stevie Nicks songs and the songs Whatever Gets You thru the Night and Bad Blood (Neil Sedaka song) as Elton John songs because of those artists respective contributions. This practice could be applied to many other songs then, but where should the delineation be if done this way? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 02:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Three different versions of Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini have gone number 1 (2 in 1960 and 1 in 1990). The version listed at List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1990s is not even shown in peak position box for various countries and the one listed at List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1960 is shown in two different peak position boxes. It is unclear to me why some countries are in one peak position box and others are shown in a different one down below.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sledgehammer (Fifth Harmony song) was nominated for GA a while ago. The original reviewer abandoned it so I eventually took over. Now the nominator does not appear to be very active. It has been open a long time so I would like to resolve it. If anyone is willing to respond to my comments at Talk:Sledgehammer (Fifth Harmony song)/GA3 that would be great. Otherwise I will probably give it another week or so and then fail it. AIRcorn (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Although the song has a separate entry at " The Loveliest Night of the Year", the discussion at Talk:Sobre las Olas#Requested move 9 March 2019 may still be of interest. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Basic question: should the titles of song articles be italicised, like I did here Treat Her Right (Sawyer Brown song), or does that not conform to the standard? Thanks, Silas Stoat ( talk) 20:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There is many options like same/different instrumental, same/different lyrics and same/different title. How to determine if certain song should be classified as different song in the list of songs? Eurohunter ( talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason that all titles capitalised? Spanish version don't capitalises them. Eurohunter ( talk) 12:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Wiwibloggs (wiwibloggs.com) and Eurovix (eurovix.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in this RfC regarding the categorization of all works by an artist by genre.
Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of The Singles Jukebox (thesinglesjukebox.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Singles Jukebox. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi WP:Songs! Requesting additional editor participation at three Bhad Bhabie singles nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gucci Flip Flops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi Bich, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Heaux. Two of them have been relisted. Thank you! Leviv ich 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Giant Steps (composition) was just moved to [[:Giant Steps (jazz standard)] and the infobox was modified so that the type is not Jazz standard. The first problem is that the only "source" for it being a standard does not appear to be a reliable one ( http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions-2/giantsteps.htm). The second is that jazz standard is not a type that is supported at the template. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Some time back, MetroLyrics stopped using the "LF" (LyricsFind logo) to designate lyrics pages that were "official" or licensed. Now, one needs to click on the "edit lyrics" in the upper right of the ML lyrics page to see if the lyrics are "locked" and display the message "The lyrics to this song are deemed official and accurate, and are subsequently locked. If you feel there is an error, feel free to submit your correction to Musixmatch". [7] However, by clicking on "Musixmatch" and connecting to its lyrics pages, it if often unclear if the lyrics are verified or can be considered "official and accurate".
According to a Musixmatch support page, "In order to assure a standard of quality, Musixmatch shows the quality status of the lyrics." [8] These are designated "Lyrics verified by Musixmatch", "Lyrics verified by Curator" (like an admin), "Lyrics verified by the community", and "Lyrics verified by Artist". However, only a fraction of its lyrics pages show any of these designations.
For example, out of the 64 song WP:Featured Articles, 32 have links to MetroLyrics. Almost of the ML pages link to the corresponding Musixmatch lyrics pages:
So out of 32 MetroLyrics linked FAs, 27 (84%) don't appear to have anything to back up identifying them as "official and accurate". Rather, it is hard to see that these are better than lyrics from other open wiki-type lyrics sites. Should these be treated as WP:User-generated content?
Additionally, it is puzzling why Musixmatch must rely on users to supply its lyrics. If in deed it "is the largest lyrics platform allowed for worldwide licensing with deals with top Music Publishers as Warner Chappel, Universal Bmg, Emi Publishing, Sony ATV, Bmg Rights, Kobalt Music and much more", [12] shouldn't it have access to professionally-run data bases? — Ojorojo ( talk) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia policy, please do not link to websites that are in violation of the artist's own copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works.
Even when using licensed websites, care must be taken to only link songs which are properly licensed, such MetroLyrics entries that are "locked" (unable to be edited by users).If there is a question regarding the licensing or accuracy of the information, including songwriter credits, please do not add a link. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.
Starting in 2015, I have made several improvements to Go Your Own Way with the goal of bringing it up the quality scale. If someone could check the song against the B class criteria, that would be greatly appreciated! Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is anyone able to provide referencing assistance at King of Spain (song)? The article's lacked sources since 2009. That really needs to change. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 13:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Antville Music Video Award doesn't seems to be notable award ( comments from 2016). It's included only in few lists but also in FL one. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute happening at I Promise (Radiohead song) about whether to include information about the type of bus included in the music video. Another opinion would be appreciated. Popcornduff ( talk) 02:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Berlin Music Video Award notable award worth to mention in the article? Winner of Best Music Video is granted €3,000. Eurohunter ( talk) 14:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't UK Singles Chart and each country list has lists like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2018 or List of number-one hits of 2018 (Denmark)? Eurohunter ( talk) 22:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've been watching this and have stayed out, but when there's a suggestion that "most or almost all countries schould have their 'top'", I see a problem. We only write articles about notable subjects. The number one song in most nations isn't much different from the number one in other nations. If the only source is the chart itself, I don't see the need for an article about it, and a list of the tops isn't warranted either. When secondary sources discuss it in more than just a WP:ROUTINE way, we should take notice, otherwise we should not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 2#RfC: Rota may be of interest to this project. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently came across some odd errors in the Billboard database. It displays data for streaming charts before those charts even existed. For example, I found that it shows a song charted on "R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs" as far back as 2000, well before there were any commercial streaming services. You can see my full post about it here, on the talk page of Wikipedia:Record charts. If you know anything about this issue, feel free to weigh in. This issue involves Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums too, so I've brought it up there as well. — BLZ · talk 20:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see this thread about the new charts planned by the above publications, and please give your views about whether either or both charts should be included in future articles. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon has closed the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre. IMO, this means we should not be adding genre categories to categories like Category:Lady Gaga albums or Category:Lady Gaga songs. In past discussions, some editors took issue with this. I am wondering, how can we move forward, or what changes need to be made to song categories on a mass scale? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz, Michig, Ojorojo, Explicit, Synthwave.94, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Richhoncho, SNUGGUMS, Kokoro20, Bondegezou, Postdlf, Doniago, Sergecross73, and Koavf: Pinging you all as part discussion participants. Any thoughts for moving forward with the RfC in mind? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I rarely look at cats, but if they're really needed, we don't need to have Category:Pop albums by American artists and Category:Pop songs by American artists, when we can have Category:Pop music works by American artists. While that makes it bigger, it also affords more opportunity for sub-categories whether by artist ( Category:Pop music works by Meghan Trainor) or be region ( Category:Pop music works artists from Colorado). And of course, this means potentially thousands of additional categories, it will make classification more precise. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Any updates needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Categories given the RfC result? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
These would need to be changed:
one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the song's genre(s) has a cited reliable source in the article.
For example ... while Category:The Temptations songs is in Category:Songs by artist, Category:American songs, Category:Motown singles and Category:Rhythm and blues songs.
Notes:
— Ojorojo ( talk) 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this has been raised a couple of time in the last two years or so, either here or at Template talk:Infobox song ... I've long been confused about how to apply the "type=" guidance to songs from the 1960s, typically those by UK acts that found success in the US. Those were the two major markets, UK and US, and the US record company often had a quite different release schedule due to the preference for shorter LPs, the practice of including hit singles on LPs (where in the UK, I gather, it was seen as conning record buyers), and of releasing more singles than in the UK. With the Beatles, even though their discography is probably the most widely covered of any artist (which, you'd think, would make basic release information and designation a doddle), it becomes impossible to accurately reflect their release history within the model Wikipedia provides. I appreciate the guidance states: If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. – but I don't believe the situation's as clear cut as that.
What currently happens in many of the song articles is we have two infoboxes. Although "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" is not the result of the UK vs US issue, it's a good example of how unsightly the page can become. "Nowhere Man" is an example of the issue I'm talking about.
The real problem comes about through the stipulation that a single is distinct from a song, because this invariably ends up favouring the US version of the band's catalogue. For instance, the Beatles' cover of "Matchbox" was recorded for and first released on their Long Tall Sally EP. In the US, the song was instead included on an album cobbled together by Capitol, Something New, and then issued on a single, and peaked inside the top 20 on Billboard. So it would seem the single release is the most notable; in which case, the infobox would carry the description "Song by the Beatles from the album Something New. (The single had nothing to do with the UK EP, in that it took place in another market.) In that way, the song's place in the band's "correct" catalogue is not represented at all. It's the same for "Nowhere Man": a key track on Rubber Soul, yet the infobox guidance suggests that it be defined as a US single – and from another Capitol carve-up, Yesterday and Today, rather than Rubber Soul, the album most readers would expect to it "from".
So, I'm wondering, how about allowing for dual releases in the one infobox by removing any text from the "from=" parameter? Examples for "Matchbox" and "Nowhere Man" to the right.
"Matchbox" | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Song by the Beatles | ||||
Released |
| |||
Recorded | June 1, 1964 | |||
Genre | Rock | |||
Length | 1:57 | |||
Label | Parlophone (UK), Capitol (US) | |||
Songwriter(s) | Carl Perkins | |||
Producer(s) | George Martin | |||
The Beatles US singles chronology | ||||
|
Taking it a step further, I seem to remember someone raising the question of us abandoning any differentiation between "song" and "single". Is that something other editors would consider? – because it would certainly help with the issue I'm talking about. My thinking is that a single is relevant only in terms of release format – ie, as distinct from an EP or album – because the subject of each article (certainly in the case of the Beatles) is only the song, as each side of the single has its own song article. You'll notice there's no B-side named in either of those example infoboxes. That's because I don't feel it's necessary – the B-side doesn't define the song, and sometimes there are several choices of B-side depending on the country – also because the template lists them first, above Released.
I appreciate that the majority of editors probably don't encounter these issues at all. But from what I've seen, it is a problem area in song articles for not just the Beatles, but also their contemporaries such as the Stones, Donovan, the Hollies, Small Faces ... JG66 ( talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Heb Ik Ooit Gezegd, a dutch language version of the Van Morrison song Have I Told You Lately. Merge proposal under WP:NSONGS is on Talk:Have I Told You Lately, but there is discussion on both talk pages. Anybody feel like commenting? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't years 1953-1992 be moved to "List of number-one singles"? They include only singles. Eurohunter ( talk) 14:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It's seems to be the best place to discuss about music due to lack of activity on other WikiProjects dedicated to music. So definition of this article says it's collection named "UK Music Charts". I think such collection doesn't exists, name is a mistification and this article is just a summary for British charts. I suggest to rename it atleast to "UK music charts" but I think it should be "British music charts". Unfortunatelly "UK Music Charts" has been ompied by other language versions so it will be hard to fix it all. Eurohunter ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I am an Italian user and I observe that a lot of stranger songs (in particular Italian songs) haven't a page on this Wikipedia. Which are the rules you use for understand if a page is encyclopedic or not? -- Mice ( talk) 11:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Identity Theory on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is Identity Theory an RS?. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
On Panini (song)#Release history, there is a small table of releases. I assume this is like the equivalent at WP:ALBUM, where release formats (cassette, digital streaming, LP, etc.) are listed but this includes a radio format. What is the purpose of this table in a song article? Is there something I'm misunderstanding? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
13:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)