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. |
I started a (now deleted) conversation on User:Ss112's talk page, which I thought might be worth bringing to a wider discussion, about redlinks for the songwriters who do not already have articles.
It seems to be usual practice to not redlink composers and suchlike - Ben Billions, one of the songwriters in the original conversation, is mentioned over 100 times on Wikipedia, but never linked, and very few articles have composer redlinks; which means that anyone who does create that article (which I think should be created, as there are now plenty of sources for notability - [1] [2] [3]) will need to go through and link them all.
WP:REDLINKS summary is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." In other words, we have a permissive standard for what should be redlinked.
Given that songwriters listed in an article pretty much intrinsically meet WP:COMPOSER - "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" - I would suggest they meet the rather low bar set by WP:REDLINKS and should be redlinked to encourage creation of articles; or at least redlinks should not be removed if present. TSP ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Songs
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
MetroLyrics no longer uses the LF (LyricFind) logo to identify "official" or presumably licensed song lyrics. Now, it appears the only way to tell is to click on "edit lyrics" and see whether it reads
instead of
Some lyrics which were previously marked with the LF logo now are not locked and can be edited. Since MetroLyrics links were added to thousands of song articles by a bot, this could affect a large number of articles. It may be time to reconsider whether the benefits of including MetroLyrics links outweigh the reliability issues (frequently miscredited songwriters, etc.).
Meanwhile, propose to change the MetroLyrics entry wording at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion) and WP:SONG#LYRICS to remove "lyrics with LF logo" and add "lyrics that are 'Locked' (unable to be edited by users) are acceptable". If there are no objections, I'll make the changes. — Ojorojo ( talk) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I made the changes to WP:ALBUMAVOID and WP:SONG#LYRICS. The question has been added at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Should song articles contain external links to commercial lyrics sites?. Please add your comments there. — Ojorojo ( talk) 22:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Mi gente should be added to the list as it is now 2x platinum by the RIAA. Regards ( 190.80.50.137 ( talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC))
Hi there. I would love to get some more input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I have been improving top 10 singles articles for the UK charts. I have a query about a couple of situations where a song has been reissued later the same year, should it count as a separate entry for each artist - I am talking specifically about 1985, when Band Aid's original version was still in the chart at the beginning of the year, and then the song was re-issued with a new remix at the end of the year with the same artists.
Should I combine the number of weeks in the "entries by artist" table for both entries, and count them as one release, or do they count as two separate songs and therefore each featured act's total should be raised by one? A similar point over Last Christmas that same year, where it entered in 1984, was in the chart for the early weeks of the year, and reissued over Christmas 1985 (technically not a re-entry like in this and last year's christmas chart).
For now I have got them as separate entries in the chart but combined the figures for entries by artist but I change this if needed. Any extra hands on updating these articles (1981-85 and 2000 onwards are pretty complete so far) are also appreciated. 03 md 04:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm new to editing Wikipedia so please bear with me. I'd like to edit the page on "Behind The Wall of Sleep" by the band The Smithereens. The information I would like to add is that the song was inspired by Kim Ernst -- bassist for the Boston-based all-girl band The Bristols (with whom the Smithereens once shared a bill). I have a reference to back this up below. Thanks Newfalconer ( talk) 04:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC) www.forbes.com/sites/.../the-smithereens-talk-beatles-blood-and-roses-wall-of-sleep/
A discussion as to whether the qualifier form "(YEAR song)" should be used for this song or, with wider implications, for any other song, is currently active at Talk:Cry Me a River (1953 song)#Requested move 27 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Do You Love Me (disambiguation)#Requested move 29 December 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 06:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is another debate I've recently relisted: Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. Come one come all! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I've started RFCs on a couple of issues that have come up recently in the music related areas of Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in chiming in, your input would be much appreciated. The two discussions are:
Any input would be appreciated, so we can come to a consensus on how to handle these situations. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion as to whether elements such as accents, diacritics, symbols or punctuation within main title headers obviate the need for qualifiers is currently active at Talk:Hate Me!#Requested move 31 December 2017. The other affected discussion is at Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Fable_(Robert_Miles_song)#Requested_move_10_January_2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have a query that you may be able to input, in 1952 and 1953 there was only a top 12 In the Uk charts (with a few songs tied some weeks) so we have an article for top 12 for these years. A top 20 came into place in October 1954, so how would I handle that year. I skipped over it and started on 1955 for now but have now done too 12 until October 1954 and then change to a top 10 with sufficient notes explaining the situation? Another alternative is to do top 12 until the end of the year then do top 10 only from 1955 onwards with notes on the 1954 and 1955 page. Look at List of UK top 12 singles in 1954 to see what I mean. 03 md 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Up Where We Belong is currently at peer review Any comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Up Where We Belong/archive1. Thanks! Danaphile ( talk) 01:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Is it correct to add entries for streaming-only charts, as Kirtap92 did in this edit? Jc86035 ( talk) 13:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
When did this song become a meme and why? Google is my friend but I like to spread the knowledge of this song around on here. 137.118.104.149 ( talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Redbone is a song by hip-hop recording artist Childish Gambino off his album Awaken, My Love! It became the subject of remixes in May 2017 following a popular tweet that described a remix where all the audio is muted as “What Redbone would sound like while you’re making out in the bathroom of a house party.”
— http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/redbone
AdA&D ★ 05:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I corrected the page to list the genre as "Heavy Metal" rather than "Hard Rock". Someone changed it back (for inexplicable reasons) and told me I had to create a talk page or something. Both of the sources that are cited for "hard rock" literally call the song metal and not hard rock. Please allow me to fix the page without reversing my correction, whoever's in charge of these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:1281:823:4D59:1CC1:829:2F16 ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Tamtam90 has created a new Template:Infobox folk song. It is similar to the deprecated Infobox standard, which was merged to Infobox song in 2015. It also uses many of the parameters of Template:Infobox musical composition. Is a new template needed or could it be a subset of Infobox musical composition? — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett has added this to Templates for discussion. Please add your comments there. — Ojorojo ( talk) 00:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there a definitive source for the best-selling singles of each year. Older years are hard to find unlike more recent years. I'm trying to get an accurate top 10 for the 50s, 60s and 70s for the Lists of UK top 10 singles articles. The best-seller for each year listed by Wikipedia differs in some years from other sources. For example, everyhit.com is usually quite reliable it for 1963 (the latest one I am working on) She Loves You and I Want to Hold Your Hand are swapped around. 03 md 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
There are many songs you can´t writing an article about, so I want to start this new Project. If you are interested in you can write it your name in the list. Thank you. -- Habitator terrae ( talk) 15:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Moxy has amended the Beatles project banner to remove all the songs from WP:Songs, and other projects. His rationale for this change is Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination, which would actually say there cannot be co-ordination between projects. FWIW, It means every Beatle songs (and any song or related category remotely connected to the Beatles have now been removed from this project. A discussion has already been started by me at User_talk:Moxy#Template:WikiProject_The_Beatles:_Difference_between_revisions. Anybody else have an opinion? This will also be posted at albums and Beatles projects -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Songs! I have nominated this discography for WP:FL (you can find it here) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything under review that needs commenting. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to ask about something I see frequently which is mentions of what song a key is in. This seems, at least to me. appropriate in some articles but excessive in others. I'm writing because I noticed that under article guideline it notes that the information "should" be including while also noting that the recording techniques while notable are"of lesser importance"
In my opinion the key section and the Recording technique section should be reversed. So that it lists the key as of "lesser importance". This is also me thinking that the recording techniques, when listed,are very relevant to a song, hence why they would be listed in the first place.
I'm not exactly sure though I'm just kinda testing the waters to see if this would be a good idea. It seems somewhat silly to me to list the key that " God's Plan" is in or a Flo Rida song, but again that might just be me. -- Deathawk ( talk) 06:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC: Descriptive phrases and song titles. The RfC primarily concerns the semantics of descriptive qualifiers such as "(Remix)" and whether they are considered part of the names of songs. Jc86035 ( talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Succession boxes are being added to song articles for specialty charts, such as Mainstream Rock,
[4] Alternative Songs,
[5] Adult Contemporary,
[6] etc., sometimes with "multiple runs.
[7] Please add your comments at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Succession boxes. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 15:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened on the question "Should succession boxes appear in song and album articles?" Please add your comments at WT:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I've been in discussion with another editor about the proper use of Category:Murder ballads. In my view, this category should be reserved to articles that are reliably associated with the genre of murder ballads, a genre that lies within traditional English folk music and which also includes those songs from the American South that are closely derived from the traditional English songs. But I'm seeing the category being populated by modern-day songs that have no obvious connection with the traditional genre. In these cases, the categorization is often being done only on the unsourced assertion that the song is a "murder ballad". And sometimes not even an assertion, but simply on the fact that somewhere in the article the word murder gets used (see, for example, Bohemian Rhapsody).
I suspect that many of these categorizations are being done simply because an editor wants to classify a song as being about a murder, only to find that there is no such category. They look under Category:Songs about crime, see sub-category Category:Murder ballads and simply assume that's where the article should go.
I propose to create a new category, Category:Songs about murders, as a sub-category of Category:Songs about crime. The existing Category:Murder ballads would then become a sub-category of the new category and would be populated only with songs for which there is a reliably-sourced association with the traditional genre (and, conceivably, this could include modern-day songs if an authoritative source makes that association).
My discussion with the other editor has been cordial and can be read here. The discussion has not led to a resolution and we agreed that a Request for Comments might be the best way to proceed. But before doing that, I think it will be helpful to get some informal opinions. I look forward to your comments. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: Interesting that you want to only add this category for articles clearly sourced as such. If you're interested, you might want to see the section I just started at the bottom of this page, where I make a similar suggestion about being more accurate about how we categorize song articles by genre. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) about a possible redirection of the article to Out of Our Heads -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to
Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Rock's Backpages is a database of more than 35,000 music news articles including reviews, interviews, and features, from the 1950s to the present day. They have agreed to provide free access to Wikipedia editors, and you can now sign up for access! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 17:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to revisit this discussion: Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?
I still get very frustrated when I see songs incorrectly associated with specific genres. For example: Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of "American synthpop songs", "Dance-pop songs", and "Electropop songs", yet entries include " Cheek to Cheek" and " Nature Boy", which are definitely none of the aforementioned genres. I propose we stop associating a recording artists' collection of songs with specific genres. There was some support for this in the previous discussion, but discussion fizzled. Is an RfC needed? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz, Michig, Izno, Ojorojo, Koavf, Synthwave.94, and Explicit: Pinging you all as contributors to the previous discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Too often, "songs by artist" categories associate an artist's entire repertoire with one or more genres, even when song articles include no mention of those genres.
For example: Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of "American synthpop songs", "Dance-pop songs", and "Electropop songs", yet entries include " Cheek to Cheek" and " Nature Boy", which are definitely none of the aforementioned genres.
Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre? There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, but I'm submitting a request for comment to generate more discussion. Thank you. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In light of recent disputes over promotional singles, I thought it'd be nice to establish community consensus on the matter in order to prevent edit warring in the future. Apparently some editors think I'm the only guy who's having issues with this, but I think we need to set up some kind of proper guidelines instead of relying on the misleading WP:SINGLE?. The following are some arguments editors have brought up in previous discussions regarding whether or not the song is a promotional single. Please also refer to Talk:Voicenotes, Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album) and Talk:Ariana Grande discography.
For
|
Against
|
Please express your opinion below, thanks. Hayman30 ( talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
There is often gray area, but one thing I can safely say for certain is that promo singles (also called buzz singles) aren't released for paid purchase (whether physical or digital) unlike official. In some cases a promo is just released as part of an album pre-order, which doesn't give it something to stand out as a full-fledged single unlike a solo CD, solo cassette, or solo paid download. Music videos and cover art (or lack thereof) aren't definitive indicators of whether something is a single. There's also times when an artist and/or label will more explicitly confirm something is a full-fledged or promo release which greatly helps and I personally wish more people in the music business did, but it's better than never commenting on the matter at all. We additionally have times when a promo becomes an official single by being put up for paid solo purchase (not counting when the parent album and all its songs are on iTunes) or maybe a mainstream radio release but I certainly wouldn't say radio isn't the sole determining factor of whether something is a single. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 01:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
In respect to country music, I believe that releasing a song to digital retailers/streaming services exclusively ahead of an album release while the lead single is at radio, those should be considered promotional singles or be categorized under 'other charted songs' depending on the article. Classifying them all as singles seems incredibly flawed because without a radio release, they don't carry the same weight at all, and in the country genre, radio is still the primary format defining something as a 'single.' It varies in other more mainstream genres with pull in other countries and where the lines blur with crossover play on multiple charts, but concerning country music I believe songs like the two recent pre-release songs from Dan + Shay's forthcoming album that were dropped to retail/streaming while they've been actively promoting "Tequila" as the 'single' from the record, should be classified separately and not lumped into their singles table with their radio hits. CloversMallRat ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to find out if there's a definitive way for how we should approach the year category for a song. I always assumed we simply used the year of release, certainly for post-WW2 commercial recordings, but perhaps that's not the case. Under WP:SONG#Categories, it says: Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable: … 2. a subcategory of Category:Songs by year, using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released …
So, what does that mean if a song was recorded in 1967, appeared in a film that premiered in 1968, and was released on the soundtrack album in 1969? I'm currently in a disagreement with an IP user, 89.242.19.86, over the year category for songs released on the Beatles' Yellow Submarine soundtrack album, e.g. " All Together Now". The album certainly belongs in Category:1969 albums and the songs in question were first commercially released then. I can see a reasonable argument for the songs being Category:1968 songs, since they were available to cinema-goers in '68 (and, I assume, published that year also). The IP user wants to see them categorised as 1967 songs, though, for the year in which they were recorded. Has this sort of scenario been discussed before at all? All thoughts are welcome.
Taking this issue wider, given that the guidance allows for the year written, should the 1967 single " Strawberry Fields Forever" be categorised as a 1966 song, since it was written and recorded in late 1966? Is " Brown Sugar" a 1969 song, or a 1971 song? JG66 ( talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(outdenting, as this is getting hard to follow, IMO) Purely from a perspective of how we looked at it in the radio industry (I spent sixteen years in the industry), we saw songs as being from the year that they were released for airplay. However, I can also see the valid argument for categorizing by the year in which the song was produced. So, while my personal music collection of about 110,000 songs is categorized by the year released for airplay, I think we should go with the production year, as long as it is sufficiently sourced. In the case of the Beatles' song in question, my suggestion would be to list it as a 1967 song, if there is a reliable source for it. Within the article, the specific situations regarding the other year(s) may be mentioned, but for the purposes of categorization, go with 1967. Strikerforce Talk 13:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
After the RfC consensus to remove succession boxes from song and album articles, Ronhjones set up RonBot for the task. Now, less than two months after first being raised as an issue, record chart succession boxes have been removed from over 8,000 articles. If some were missed, please let us know. — Ojorojo ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody have a look over the above article and Lavender (BadBadNotGood song) see if there is any good reason why the two should not be merged pursuant to WP:SONGS? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 17:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, may I ask if a 2/3-track release by an artist is counted as a single release or an EP release? Example here and here. Traditionally, I have always counted singles as a 1 track release (well, a single object is one object!), so I put all non-single release tracks in the EP section for the Andrew Bayer page. Not sure if this is right or wrong, would love a consensus on this. aNode (discuss) 07:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
In the article about the music video for Tracy Lawrence's 1993 hit "My Second Home", it mentions Toby Keith as a "future superstar". While Keith's breakthrough didn't come until 1999's "How Do You Like Me Now?", he was already getting started in his career at the time Lawrence's "Home" video was released; Keith had his first number one hit with "Should've Been a Cowboy", and the follow-up, "He Ain't Worth Missing", would later go Top Five as well. However, Tim McGraw and Shania Twain would indeed later become "future superstars" in their careers. 45.22.43.42 ( talk) 11:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think the phrase is in keeping with the spirit of the guideline. Not sure why it was removed. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, how about something like:
Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. The mere availability of the version from a site from which an audio or video recording of the song can be purchased, downloaded, or played is not enough to show that it is suitable for inclusion. To meet the criteria, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book; album track listings, listings in discographies, chart listings, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. Cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.
— Ojorojo ( talk) 16:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Rhyme scheme patterns, that Wikipedia adopt a consistent style for rhyme scheme notation. Scansion is also mentioned. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:COVERSONG as it stands is misleading and violates notability guidelines. Many who used it appear to think that notability guidelines apply to content in article (such as mention of covers within an article), which is a misunderstanding. Per
WP:NNC - "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists
" except for some standalone lists. Notability guidelines are meant to determine if a subject warrants an article, they are not about the content of the article.
For example, two editors cited
WP:COVERSONG and both misuse notability guidelines -
FlightTime claimed that a bunch of charted and sourced cover songs are not notable
[9], while
SummerPhDv2.0 claimed that only versions which would meet
WP:NSONG should be included
[10].
FlightTime claimed that the sourced charted songs are not necessarily notable, which is accurate as far as
WP:NSONG is concerned, which states that a charted song may be notable, not that it is notable
. However
WP:NSONG cannot and should not be used to determine if a cover version is notable enough to be included, because it is only meant for determining the notability of a subject of an article, not its content.
The use of notability criteria by editors to delete song covers is wrong in a number of ways, not just violating the notability guideline, but also ignoring other guidelines that serve as a balance when determining notability, for example
WP:NEXIST which states that "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable
", and
WP:BEFORE that requires those who want to delete article to check first whether sources exist in search. By demanding sources that address the subject as the main topic (which is not even demanded by
WP:GNG) must be given in article, deleting and not checking, they are actually demanding even more stringent criteria than what's in notability guidelines. The idea that a single sentence entry in an article requires more stringent criteria than the article itself is patently absurd and defies all common sense.
WP:COVERSONG should therefore be rewritten or if not, then it may be deleted as it is a misuse of the notability guidelines. As noted in
WP:Notability, whether something is worthy enough to be mentioned in an article "is governed by the principle of
due weight and other
content policies
", therefore it should be rewritten with that in mind. A cover with large number of sources may warrant one section, while those with fewer sources may be limited to a sentence or two. A charted cover song with source should be considered acceptable, as is a song discussed in reliable sources. While the concern is that an article may overflow with random covers, judicious application of a few existing policies and guidelines should be sufficient to keep those random entries in check, for example, the requirement for verifiability in reliable sources per
WP:V would eliminate a lot of the random covers. .
Hzh (
talk) 13:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
With only a chart listing, what is there to write about? "So & So's cover of 'X Song' reached number 39 on the Adult Top 40 airplay (spins) chart on April 1, 2018" doesn't provide encyclopedic content. If a rendition is going to be mentioned, it is more meaningful to know how it compares, what inspired it, etc. Again, if it's important, some RS probably has written about it. — Ojorojo ( talk) 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I've adapted Ojorojo's suggestion and added other bits, the significant change being the charting part because we cannot have a criterion that is more stringent than WP:NSONG (it would defy common sense otherwise) -
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article but not in a separate article. To meet the criteria, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book. Album track listings, listings in discographies, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. A cover is assumed to be noteworthy for inclusion if it has an entry in a significant national music chart. Treatment of a cover should be proportionate to its significance.
* Oppose Adding artists who have no reliably sourced discussion in the context of the artist's work or the parent song does not add useful information to a song article – it's just name dropping. No convincing examples have been presented and "significant national charts" is wide open to interpretation. Less information is preferable to bloated "Other versions" sections. Other websites are better at handling covers, such as AllMusic [11] or second hand songs. — Ojorojo ( talk) 22:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made a little adjustment to the chart part to try to define what is "significant" for charts (added in a note). I've also added a bit about awards. If anyone feels that the wording is wrong, or has a better idea, then do give your alternative proposal. Note however that it is unreasonable to suggest a criterion that is more stringent than WP:NSONG, although personally I think NSONG itself could be made clearer. It is also unreasonable to suggest that a chart entry is trivial - it is simply wrong to deny something fundamental about how success or popularity is measured in the music industry, and to do so would be pushing a POV.
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article and not in a separate article. To meet the criteria for inclusion, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book. Album track listings, listings in discographies, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. A cover may be included if it has won or been nominated for a major music award, [1] or has an entry in a significant music chart. [2] Treatment of a cover should be proportionate to its significance. Hzh ( talk) 01:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
References
On the Wikipedia site, it says that Maria McKee wrote the song, and that it debuted as a sound track in 1990. I'm a big fan of hers btw. It also says that other artists subsequently covered it. but those dates start in like 1995. So when did it really first come out? thanks Zoe
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. |
I started a (now deleted) conversation on User:Ss112's talk page, which I thought might be worth bringing to a wider discussion, about redlinks for the songwriters who do not already have articles.
It seems to be usual practice to not redlink composers and suchlike - Ben Billions, one of the songwriters in the original conversation, is mentioned over 100 times on Wikipedia, but never linked, and very few articles have composer redlinks; which means that anyone who does create that article (which I think should be created, as there are now plenty of sources for notability - [1] [2] [3]) will need to go through and link them all.
WP:REDLINKS summary is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." In other words, we have a permissive standard for what should be redlinked.
Given that songwriters listed in an article pretty much intrinsically meet WP:COMPOSER - "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" - I would suggest they meet the rather low bar set by WP:REDLINKS and should be redlinked to encourage creation of articles; or at least redlinks should not be removed if present. TSP ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Songs
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
MetroLyrics no longer uses the LF (LyricFind) logo to identify "official" or presumably licensed song lyrics. Now, it appears the only way to tell is to click on "edit lyrics" and see whether it reads
instead of
Some lyrics which were previously marked with the LF logo now are not locked and can be edited. Since MetroLyrics links were added to thousands of song articles by a bot, this could affect a large number of articles. It may be time to reconsider whether the benefits of including MetroLyrics links outweigh the reliability issues (frequently miscredited songwriters, etc.).
Meanwhile, propose to change the MetroLyrics entry wording at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion) and WP:SONG#LYRICS to remove "lyrics with LF logo" and add "lyrics that are 'Locked' (unable to be edited by users) are acceptable". If there are no objections, I'll make the changes. — Ojorojo ( talk) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I made the changes to WP:ALBUMAVOID and WP:SONG#LYRICS. The question has been added at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Should song articles contain external links to commercial lyrics sites?. Please add your comments there. — Ojorojo ( talk) 22:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Mi gente should be added to the list as it is now 2x platinum by the RIAA. Regards ( 190.80.50.137 ( talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC))
Hi there. I would love to get some more input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I have been improving top 10 singles articles for the UK charts. I have a query about a couple of situations where a song has been reissued later the same year, should it count as a separate entry for each artist - I am talking specifically about 1985, when Band Aid's original version was still in the chart at the beginning of the year, and then the song was re-issued with a new remix at the end of the year with the same artists.
Should I combine the number of weeks in the "entries by artist" table for both entries, and count them as one release, or do they count as two separate songs and therefore each featured act's total should be raised by one? A similar point over Last Christmas that same year, where it entered in 1984, was in the chart for the early weeks of the year, and reissued over Christmas 1985 (technically not a re-entry like in this and last year's christmas chart).
For now I have got them as separate entries in the chart but combined the figures for entries by artist but I change this if needed. Any extra hands on updating these articles (1981-85 and 2000 onwards are pretty complete so far) are also appreciated. 03 md 04:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm new to editing Wikipedia so please bear with me. I'd like to edit the page on "Behind The Wall of Sleep" by the band The Smithereens. The information I would like to add is that the song was inspired by Kim Ernst -- bassist for the Boston-based all-girl band The Bristols (with whom the Smithereens once shared a bill). I have a reference to back this up below. Thanks Newfalconer ( talk) 04:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC) www.forbes.com/sites/.../the-smithereens-talk-beatles-blood-and-roses-wall-of-sleep/
A discussion as to whether the qualifier form "(YEAR song)" should be used for this song or, with wider implications, for any other song, is currently active at Talk:Cry Me a River (1953 song)#Requested move 27 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Do You Love Me (disambiguation)#Requested move 29 December 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 06:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is another debate I've recently relisted: Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. Come one come all! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I've started RFCs on a couple of issues that have come up recently in the music related areas of Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in chiming in, your input would be much appreciated. The two discussions are:
Any input would be appreciated, so we can come to a consensus on how to handle these situations. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion as to whether elements such as accents, diacritics, symbols or punctuation within main title headers obviate the need for qualifiers is currently active at Talk:Hate Me!#Requested move 31 December 2017. The other affected discussion is at Talk:Hate Me (Blue October song)#Requested move 21 December 2017. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Fable_(Robert_Miles_song)#Requested_move_10_January_2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have a query that you may be able to input, in 1952 and 1953 there was only a top 12 In the Uk charts (with a few songs tied some weeks) so we have an article for top 12 for these years. A top 20 came into place in October 1954, so how would I handle that year. I skipped over it and started on 1955 for now but have now done too 12 until October 1954 and then change to a top 10 with sufficient notes explaining the situation? Another alternative is to do top 12 until the end of the year then do top 10 only from 1955 onwards with notes on the 1954 and 1955 page. Look at List of UK top 12 singles in 1954 to see what I mean. 03 md 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Up Where We Belong is currently at peer review Any comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Up Where We Belong/archive1. Thanks! Danaphile ( talk) 01:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Is it correct to add entries for streaming-only charts, as Kirtap92 did in this edit? Jc86035 ( talk) 13:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
When did this song become a meme and why? Google is my friend but I like to spread the knowledge of this song around on here. 137.118.104.149 ( talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Redbone is a song by hip-hop recording artist Childish Gambino off his album Awaken, My Love! It became the subject of remixes in May 2017 following a popular tweet that described a remix where all the audio is muted as “What Redbone would sound like while you’re making out in the bathroom of a house party.”
— http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/redbone
AdA&D ★ 05:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I corrected the page to list the genre as "Heavy Metal" rather than "Hard Rock". Someone changed it back (for inexplicable reasons) and told me I had to create a talk page or something. Both of the sources that are cited for "hard rock" literally call the song metal and not hard rock. Please allow me to fix the page without reversing my correction, whoever's in charge of these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:1281:823:4D59:1CC1:829:2F16 ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Tamtam90 has created a new Template:Infobox folk song. It is similar to the deprecated Infobox standard, which was merged to Infobox song in 2015. It also uses many of the parameters of Template:Infobox musical composition. Is a new template needed or could it be a subset of Infobox musical composition? — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett has added this to Templates for discussion. Please add your comments there. — Ojorojo ( talk) 00:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there a definitive source for the best-selling singles of each year. Older years are hard to find unlike more recent years. I'm trying to get an accurate top 10 for the 50s, 60s and 70s for the Lists of UK top 10 singles articles. The best-seller for each year listed by Wikipedia differs in some years from other sources. For example, everyhit.com is usually quite reliable it for 1963 (the latest one I am working on) She Loves You and I Want to Hold Your Hand are swapped around. 03 md 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
There are many songs you can´t writing an article about, so I want to start this new Project. If you are interested in you can write it your name in the list. Thank you. -- Habitator terrae ( talk) 15:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Moxy has amended the Beatles project banner to remove all the songs from WP:Songs, and other projects. His rationale for this change is Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination, which would actually say there cannot be co-ordination between projects. FWIW, It means every Beatle songs (and any song or related category remotely connected to the Beatles have now been removed from this project. A discussion has already been started by me at User_talk:Moxy#Template:WikiProject_The_Beatles:_Difference_between_revisions. Anybody else have an opinion? This will also be posted at albums and Beatles projects -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Songs! I have nominated this discography for WP:FL (you can find it here) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything under review that needs commenting. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to ask about something I see frequently which is mentions of what song a key is in. This seems, at least to me. appropriate in some articles but excessive in others. I'm writing because I noticed that under article guideline it notes that the information "should" be including while also noting that the recording techniques while notable are"of lesser importance"
In my opinion the key section and the Recording technique section should be reversed. So that it lists the key as of "lesser importance". This is also me thinking that the recording techniques, when listed,are very relevant to a song, hence why they would be listed in the first place.
I'm not exactly sure though I'm just kinda testing the waters to see if this would be a good idea. It seems somewhat silly to me to list the key that " God's Plan" is in or a Flo Rida song, but again that might just be me. -- Deathawk ( talk) 06:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC: Descriptive phrases and song titles. The RfC primarily concerns the semantics of descriptive qualifiers such as "(Remix)" and whether they are considered part of the names of songs. Jc86035 ( talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Succession boxes are being added to song articles for specialty charts, such as Mainstream Rock,
[4] Alternative Songs,
[5] Adult Contemporary,
[6] etc., sometimes with "multiple runs.
[7] Please add your comments at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Succession boxes. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 15:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened on the question "Should succession boxes appear in song and album articles?" Please add your comments at WT:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I've been in discussion with another editor about the proper use of Category:Murder ballads. In my view, this category should be reserved to articles that are reliably associated with the genre of murder ballads, a genre that lies within traditional English folk music and which also includes those songs from the American South that are closely derived from the traditional English songs. But I'm seeing the category being populated by modern-day songs that have no obvious connection with the traditional genre. In these cases, the categorization is often being done only on the unsourced assertion that the song is a "murder ballad". And sometimes not even an assertion, but simply on the fact that somewhere in the article the word murder gets used (see, for example, Bohemian Rhapsody).
I suspect that many of these categorizations are being done simply because an editor wants to classify a song as being about a murder, only to find that there is no such category. They look under Category:Songs about crime, see sub-category Category:Murder ballads and simply assume that's where the article should go.
I propose to create a new category, Category:Songs about murders, as a sub-category of Category:Songs about crime. The existing Category:Murder ballads would then become a sub-category of the new category and would be populated only with songs for which there is a reliably-sourced association with the traditional genre (and, conceivably, this could include modern-day songs if an authoritative source makes that association).
My discussion with the other editor has been cordial and can be read here. The discussion has not led to a resolution and we agreed that a Request for Comments might be the best way to proceed. But before doing that, I think it will be helpful to get some informal opinions. I look forward to your comments. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@ NewYorkActuary: Interesting that you want to only add this category for articles clearly sourced as such. If you're interested, you might want to see the section I just started at the bottom of this page, where I make a similar suggestion about being more accurate about how we categorize song articles by genre. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) about a possible redirection of the article to Out of Our Heads -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to
Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Rock's Backpages is a database of more than 35,000 music news articles including reviews, interviews, and features, from the 1950s to the present day. They have agreed to provide free access to Wikipedia editors, and you can now sign up for access! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 17:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to revisit this discussion: Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?
I still get very frustrated when I see songs incorrectly associated with specific genres. For example: Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of "American synthpop songs", "Dance-pop songs", and "Electropop songs", yet entries include " Cheek to Cheek" and " Nature Boy", which are definitely none of the aforementioned genres. I propose we stop associating a recording artists' collection of songs with specific genres. There was some support for this in the previous discussion, but discussion fizzled. Is an RfC needed? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz, Michig, Izno, Ojorojo, Koavf, Synthwave.94, and Explicit: Pinging you all as contributors to the previous discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Too often, "songs by artist" categories associate an artist's entire repertoire with one or more genres, even when song articles include no mention of those genres.
For example: Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of "American synthpop songs", "Dance-pop songs", and "Electropop songs", yet entries include " Cheek to Cheek" and " Nature Boy", which are definitely none of the aforementioned genres.
Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre? There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, but I'm submitting a request for comment to generate more discussion. Thank you. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In light of recent disputes over promotional singles, I thought it'd be nice to establish community consensus on the matter in order to prevent edit warring in the future. Apparently some editors think I'm the only guy who's having issues with this, but I think we need to set up some kind of proper guidelines instead of relying on the misleading WP:SINGLE?. The following are some arguments editors have brought up in previous discussions regarding whether or not the song is a promotional single. Please also refer to Talk:Voicenotes, Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album) and Talk:Ariana Grande discography.
For
|
Against
|
Please express your opinion below, thanks. Hayman30 ( talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
There is often gray area, but one thing I can safely say for certain is that promo singles (also called buzz singles) aren't released for paid purchase (whether physical or digital) unlike official. In some cases a promo is just released as part of an album pre-order, which doesn't give it something to stand out as a full-fledged single unlike a solo CD, solo cassette, or solo paid download. Music videos and cover art (or lack thereof) aren't definitive indicators of whether something is a single. There's also times when an artist and/or label will more explicitly confirm something is a full-fledged or promo release which greatly helps and I personally wish more people in the music business did, but it's better than never commenting on the matter at all. We additionally have times when a promo becomes an official single by being put up for paid solo purchase (not counting when the parent album and all its songs are on iTunes) or maybe a mainstream radio release but I certainly wouldn't say radio isn't the sole determining factor of whether something is a single. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 01:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
In respect to country music, I believe that releasing a song to digital retailers/streaming services exclusively ahead of an album release while the lead single is at radio, those should be considered promotional singles or be categorized under 'other charted songs' depending on the article. Classifying them all as singles seems incredibly flawed because without a radio release, they don't carry the same weight at all, and in the country genre, radio is still the primary format defining something as a 'single.' It varies in other more mainstream genres with pull in other countries and where the lines blur with crossover play on multiple charts, but concerning country music I believe songs like the two recent pre-release songs from Dan + Shay's forthcoming album that were dropped to retail/streaming while they've been actively promoting "Tequila" as the 'single' from the record, should be classified separately and not lumped into their singles table with their radio hits. CloversMallRat ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to find out if there's a definitive way for how we should approach the year category for a song. I always assumed we simply used the year of release, certainly for post-WW2 commercial recordings, but perhaps that's not the case. Under WP:SONG#Categories, it says: Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable: … 2. a subcategory of Category:Songs by year, using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released …
So, what does that mean if a song was recorded in 1967, appeared in a film that premiered in 1968, and was released on the soundtrack album in 1969? I'm currently in a disagreement with an IP user, 89.242.19.86, over the year category for songs released on the Beatles' Yellow Submarine soundtrack album, e.g. " All Together Now". The album certainly belongs in Category:1969 albums and the songs in question were first commercially released then. I can see a reasonable argument for the songs being Category:1968 songs, since they were available to cinema-goers in '68 (and, I assume, published that year also). The IP user wants to see them categorised as 1967 songs, though, for the year in which they were recorded. Has this sort of scenario been discussed before at all? All thoughts are welcome.
Taking this issue wider, given that the guidance allows for the year written, should the 1967 single " Strawberry Fields Forever" be categorised as a 1966 song, since it was written and recorded in late 1966? Is " Brown Sugar" a 1969 song, or a 1971 song? JG66 ( talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(outdenting, as this is getting hard to follow, IMO) Purely from a perspective of how we looked at it in the radio industry (I spent sixteen years in the industry), we saw songs as being from the year that they were released for airplay. However, I can also see the valid argument for categorizing by the year in which the song was produced. So, while my personal music collection of about 110,000 songs is categorized by the year released for airplay, I think we should go with the production year, as long as it is sufficiently sourced. In the case of the Beatles' song in question, my suggestion would be to list it as a 1967 song, if there is a reliable source for it. Within the article, the specific situations regarding the other year(s) may be mentioned, but for the purposes of categorization, go with 1967. Strikerforce Talk 13:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
After the RfC consensus to remove succession boxes from song and album articles, Ronhjones set up RonBot for the task. Now, less than two months after first being raised as an issue, record chart succession boxes have been removed from over 8,000 articles. If some were missed, please let us know. — Ojorojo ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody have a look over the above article and Lavender (BadBadNotGood song) see if there is any good reason why the two should not be merged pursuant to WP:SONGS? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 17:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, may I ask if a 2/3-track release by an artist is counted as a single release or an EP release? Example here and here. Traditionally, I have always counted singles as a 1 track release (well, a single object is one object!), so I put all non-single release tracks in the EP section for the Andrew Bayer page. Not sure if this is right or wrong, would love a consensus on this. aNode (discuss) 07:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
In the article about the music video for Tracy Lawrence's 1993 hit "My Second Home", it mentions Toby Keith as a "future superstar". While Keith's breakthrough didn't come until 1999's "How Do You Like Me Now?", he was already getting started in his career at the time Lawrence's "Home" video was released; Keith had his first number one hit with "Should've Been a Cowboy", and the follow-up, "He Ain't Worth Missing", would later go Top Five as well. However, Tim McGraw and Shania Twain would indeed later become "future superstars" in their careers. 45.22.43.42 ( talk) 11:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think the phrase is in keeping with the spirit of the guideline. Not sure why it was removed. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, how about something like:
Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. The mere availability of the version from a site from which an audio or video recording of the song can be purchased, downloaded, or played is not enough to show that it is suitable for inclusion. To meet the criteria, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book; album track listings, listings in discographies, chart listings, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. Cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.
— Ojorojo ( talk) 16:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Rhyme scheme patterns, that Wikipedia adopt a consistent style for rhyme scheme notation. Scansion is also mentioned. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:COVERSONG as it stands is misleading and violates notability guidelines. Many who used it appear to think that notability guidelines apply to content in article (such as mention of covers within an article), which is a misunderstanding. Per
WP:NNC - "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists
" except for some standalone lists. Notability guidelines are meant to determine if a subject warrants an article, they are not about the content of the article.
For example, two editors cited
WP:COVERSONG and both misuse notability guidelines -
FlightTime claimed that a bunch of charted and sourced cover songs are not notable
[9], while
SummerPhDv2.0 claimed that only versions which would meet
WP:NSONG should be included
[10].
FlightTime claimed that the sourced charted songs are not necessarily notable, which is accurate as far as
WP:NSONG is concerned, which states that a charted song may be notable, not that it is notable
. However
WP:NSONG cannot and should not be used to determine if a cover version is notable enough to be included, because it is only meant for determining the notability of a subject of an article, not its content.
The use of notability criteria by editors to delete song covers is wrong in a number of ways, not just violating the notability guideline, but also ignoring other guidelines that serve as a balance when determining notability, for example
WP:NEXIST which states that "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable
", and
WP:BEFORE that requires those who want to delete article to check first whether sources exist in search. By demanding sources that address the subject as the main topic (which is not even demanded by
WP:GNG) must be given in article, deleting and not checking, they are actually demanding even more stringent criteria than what's in notability guidelines. The idea that a single sentence entry in an article requires more stringent criteria than the article itself is patently absurd and defies all common sense.
WP:COVERSONG should therefore be rewritten or if not, then it may be deleted as it is a misuse of the notability guidelines. As noted in
WP:Notability, whether something is worthy enough to be mentioned in an article "is governed by the principle of
due weight and other
content policies
", therefore it should be rewritten with that in mind. A cover with large number of sources may warrant one section, while those with fewer sources may be limited to a sentence or two. A charted cover song with source should be considered acceptable, as is a song discussed in reliable sources. While the concern is that an article may overflow with random covers, judicious application of a few existing policies and guidelines should be sufficient to keep those random entries in check, for example, the requirement for verifiability in reliable sources per
WP:V would eliminate a lot of the random covers. .
Hzh (
talk) 13:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
With only a chart listing, what is there to write about? "So & So's cover of 'X Song' reached number 39 on the Adult Top 40 airplay (spins) chart on April 1, 2018" doesn't provide encyclopedic content. If a rendition is going to be mentioned, it is more meaningful to know how it compares, what inspired it, etc. Again, if it's important, some RS probably has written about it. — Ojorojo ( talk) 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I've adapted Ojorojo's suggestion and added other bits, the significant change being the charting part because we cannot have a criterion that is more stringent than WP:NSONG (it would defy common sense otherwise) -
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article but not in a separate article. To meet the criteria, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book. Album track listings, listings in discographies, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. A cover is assumed to be noteworthy for inclusion if it has an entry in a significant national music chart. Treatment of a cover should be proportionate to its significance.
* Oppose Adding artists who have no reliably sourced discussion in the context of the artist's work or the parent song does not add useful information to a song article – it's just name dropping. No convincing examples have been presented and "significant national charts" is wide open to interpretation. Less information is preferable to bloated "Other versions" sections. Other websites are better at handling covers, such as AllMusic [11] or second hand songs. — Ojorojo ( talk) 22:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made a little adjustment to the chart part to try to define what is "significant" for charts (added in a note). I've also added a bit about awards. If anyone feels that the wording is wrong, or has a better idea, then do give your alternative proposal. Note however that it is unreasonable to suggest a criterion that is more stringent than WP:NSONG, although personally I think NSONG itself could be made clearer. It is also unreasonable to suggest that a chart entry is trivial - it is simply wrong to deny something fundamental about how success or popularity is measured in the music industry, and to do so would be pushing a POV.
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article and not in a separate article. To meet the criteria for inclusion, the rendition needs to be discussed by a reliable source, such as in a review, an artist biography, or music reference book. Album track listings, listings in discographies, etc., that only confirm that the version exists do not show that it is noteworthy. A cover may be included if it has won or been nominated for a major music award, [1] or has an entry in a significant music chart. [2] Treatment of a cover should be proportionate to its significance. Hzh ( talk) 01:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
References
On the Wikipedia site, it says that Maria McKee wrote the song, and that it debuted as a sound track in 1990. I'm a big fan of hers btw. It also says that other artists subsequently covered it. but those dates start in like 1995. So when did it really first come out? thanks Zoe