Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Discussion of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Chart-genre discussion

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)

Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

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:

  • Editors not concerned about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:koavf
  • Editors expressing concern about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:Walter Görlitz, User:Michig, User:Ojorojo, User:Explicit
  • I'm not entirely sure where User:Synthwave.94 falls on the issue; they commented on a specific change to the Led Zeppelin songs category, but (IMO) did not weigh in on the larger discussion (correct me if I'm wrong)

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)

"are we seriously suggesting all songs by Lady Gaga are synthpop?" No. Just like how Category:Metallica albums is under Category:Thrash metal albums but they do have one symphonic metal album, it's okay to characterize a category as being thrash even if a single article is symphonic. The precision of categories really needs to apply to articles more than categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, you have appropriately summarised my views as stated previously. There's too much categorising for the sake of categorising here, a desire to create a neat ontology where none exists. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: But we are essentially calling all Lady Gaga songs synthpop by removing Category:Synthpop songs and keeping Category:Lady Gaga songs. (For the record, the edit made to "Sexxx Dreams" was reverted, and Category:Synthpop songs was replaced with Category:American synthpop songs, but I think this still makes a good example.) You've made your strong opposition known. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I think anyone knows the difference. Is there a policy or guideline that supports your claim? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What claim, exactly? What am I proving? If we can only add genres to song article infoboxes with appropriate sourcing to confirm, why are we not treating categories similarly? We should only be including articles in song genres when the article's prose specifically mentions genres, not just throwing them into an artist category and hoping the genre applies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
"What claim, exactly?" About all articles in a child category inheriting some property from a parent. "If we can only add genres to song article infoboxes with appropriate sourcing to confirm, why are we not treating categories similarly?" Because articles are different than categories, as I just said above. This is exactly my point: if Metallica releases one smooth jazz single and the rest of their songs are thrash metal, it's okay to have the category be included in thrash metal and save that one smooth jazz song for being categorized differently. Don't upmerge dozens of songs out of that category and leave the main artist category without a genre because of one weird outlier. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
That's where we disagree. In my opinion, the outliers are problematic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: WP:SUBCAT supports this. ℯxplicit 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
My two cents: I think far too much time is wasted arguing about this, considering I feel like the vast majority of Wikipedia readers don’t even know categories exist, let alone use them. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Really? So that's a reason to keep a terribly inaccurate category structure? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to politely clarify for you that he doesn't care. Nor do I. dannymusiceditor oops 22:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Noted. Two "don't care" votes. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 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)

Wrap this up

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)

Sergecross73, Good grief, I was just trying to prevent this section from being archived to see if any more comments would be added. Calm down, and if you feel so strongly about getting this out of the way, then just manually archive. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Sergecross73. There's no need to keep the discussion alive beyond its natural life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Are B-sides considered singles?

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. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I'm just wondering how often a B-side would merit its own article... perhaps the Beatles' singles and some others back in the 1960s, but surely not many since then. Do you have an example? Richard3120 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Richard3120: Yes - "Gotta Get Up" by Harry Nilsson. It was released as a B-side in 1971 but found wide fame this year when used in a Netflix series. The article on A-sides and B-sides also include some famous examples of B-sides that became more famous because DJs liked them better (such as "Rock Around the Clock"), but I'm not sure if they were re-released as official singles because of their popularity. Thanks for your time. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought it would be from that era – I can't see many B-sides becoming notable after the late 70s. I'd say yes, you should probably include the singles chronology in the {{Infobox song}} template. As I expected, most Beatles B-sides have their own articles, in some cases even GA status (see "Rain" and "Revolution", for example), and they include the chronology. In my opinion it helps to provide some context and timeline for the song. Richard3120 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Youth (Shawn Mendes song)

​​​​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)

It was sourced from the very beginning. Songs do not have to be released to radio in order to become singles. Hayman30 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Songs by backing vocalists

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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think the artist has to be credited by name on the record, i.e. "with Elton John" or "featuring Elton John". Otherwise, by this logic "All of the Lights" is an Elton John song... just as "You're So Vain" is a Mick Jagger song, and "Young Americans" is a Luther Vandross song. And what do you do about songs like "We Are the World" and "Do They Know It's Christmas?"... categorise them by every one of the dozens of artists featured on the records? Richard3120 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Attn please

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)

@TonyTheTiger: I guess nobody has bothered to create a separate section for the UK Bombalurina version in 1990 – this was a one-off novelty hit that was basically one person, children's TV presenter Timmy Mallett, and as a result they never had another hit, which is why they don't have their own article. But the single charted in at least ten different countries, so it deserves its own section in the song article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
One-off novelty hit that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart. Novelty seems to be a misplaced adjective here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
And as for the two 1960 versions, aren't the chart tables simply showing in which countries Brian Hyland's English version charted, and then the countries in which Johnny Halliday's French-speaking version charted? Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a "Chart history" section and a separate (Oh wait there are four versions of this song that have gone #1). At first, I was thinking the Hallyday version and the Hyland version were one version. I can't imagine a song charted at number 1 in one country and never charted in any other countries. Someone who knows how to research chart history accomplishments really needs to do some work on this article. How many songs are there that have 4 different versions that have charted number 1 in various countries? I have to think there are other versions that have charted that should have some chart history discussion. When I created "Here We Go Again" and brought it to WP:FA, it took me a ton of digging to figure out that there were lesser known versions that charted. It can't be the case that all four times this song charted it reached number 1. There must be other charted versions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: no, this list is showing all the recorded versions of the song that the database knows about – if any of these versions had been released as singles and charted, then this would be shown in the last three columns (Entry/Peak/Weeks), but you can see that they are all empty, so this song has never charted in Italy. I know it seems hard to believe that Hendrix could possibly have recorded this song, but he has – it's a live version on the Germany-only album release Mr. Pitiful [1].
As for your query above, I'm going to try and tidy up the song's article now, but I don't see why it's impossible to believe that four different versions of the song could have made number one in different countries ("Unchained Melody" has been number one four times by four different artists in the UK alone). It was quite common in the pre-Beatles era for various countries to remake a popular song with new lyrics in the home country's language. The US has done this as well, of course – "My Way" was originally a French song before Paul Anka wrote English lyrics for it and Frank Sinatra made it famous worldwide. And two of Elvis Presley's biggest singles, "It's Now or Never" and "Wooden Heart", were Italian and German folk songs, respectively, before new English lyrics were put to them. A well-known case of a song that was a hit in the US and UK for different artists was "Moon River"... in the US it's become Andy Williams' theme song, but although Andy is well-known in the UK this is not one of his best known tracks there, by any means – in the UK the number-one version was by black South African Danny Williams, and this is the version everyone knows and hears on oldies radio stations in Britain. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Richard, O.K. so in terms of charting, the song seems to have charted in the Netherlands several times according to this database: JAN UND KJELD, ELIZE,ALBERT WEST & BRIAN HYLAND, BAND ZONDER BANAAN & ALBERT WEST, LINE RENAUD, and RICHARD ANTHONY. These versions must have charted in other countries other than the Netherlands, no? Also, the article should mention the numerous "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Honolulu Strand Bikini" versions, I think. Can you source this? Surely, we should mention the Hendrix version in the article, right and the version from Connie Francis and The Kids Next Door?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, yes, the other Dutch charting versions should be included... perhaps this section should be retitled "Dutch versions". There's no reason to think that they would have charted in other countries, except maybe Belgian Flanders, and clearly they didn't – as I have mentioned above, before the internet era made songs ubiquitous across the world, it was quite normal for each country to have their own very individual identity regarding popular musicians and charts, particularly with their different languages, which don't travel well even across the small countries of Europe (the Jan & Kjeld version was sung in Dutch, so nobody would have understood it apart from the Netherlands and Flanders).
Per WP:SONGCOVER, the various cover versions should only be mentioned if there are independent sources that actual talk about them in detail, not just discography listings or YouTube links. Therefore the majority of the versions mentioned in the "Other cover versions and parodies" section should be deleted, and the Hendrix and Connie Francis versions not mentioned unless we can find sources for them. That probably goes for the "Honolulu Strand Bikini" versions as well, unless they charted in their respective countries and/or can be sourced properly. Richard3120 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Update: the Line Renaud version only made the Belgian Bubbling Under charts, and the Elize song is an entirely different song. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Richard3120 OK so we are left with the following unsourced facts:
  1. Line Renaud version only made the Belgian Bubbling Under charts
  2. the Jan & Kjeld version JAN UND KJELD was sung in Dutch
  3. Hendrix JIMI HENDRIX version was on the Germany-only album release Mr. Pitiful [2]
  4. Connie Francis CONNIE FRANCIS version was on Connie Francis and The Kids Next Door.
  5. "Honolulu Strand Bikini" version only charted by Jan & Kjeld and Club Honolulu to our knowledge with no other reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Richard3120 Well the Club Honolulu "Honolulu Strand Bikini" version went to # 1 in Germany. There must be some sourcing for this--19:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger Actually I've just added the Jan & Kjeld version – it was sung in German, not Dutch. So maybe it's best to add the Club Honolulu version to that section and call them the "German versions"... Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Richard3120, We need to mention the phrase "Honolulu Strand Bikini" somewhere if you can source the Club Honolulu version. If you could also add it to the WP:LEAD and clean that up with your greater understanding of the content that would be great. Thanks for your hard work on my curiosity with this song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem – I'll have to go to work soon, but I'll try and tidy this article up in the next day or two. Richard3120 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Great. thanks again for your help. P.S. I have not only learned some music history, but with the image results of some googling, I have learned some fashion: that a strand bikini seems to be a more explicit string bikini in which the string is more liberally located.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it – I think if my girlfriend found out I'd been Googling pictures of bikinis, I'd have some explaining to do... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It is just educational googling for wikipedia. Hey are any of the following adequate sources to include the Hendrix version a book, a review, discogs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no – the book again is just a track listing, nothing to indicate that Hendrix's version was notable (compare with his rendition of the "Star-Spangled Banner", which has been endlessly discussed in the last 50 years). Discogs and Rate Your Music are user-generated content and forums – anyone can edit them, and there's no editorial control, so they are not considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes (same goes for iMDb regarding movies). What we're really looking for is a journalist actually discussing and critiquing Hendrix's version – unlikely as it's barely a minute long and obviously intended as throwaway filler on the album. Richard3120 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I think your girlfriend has gotten up in my search engine. Upon attempting to continue my wikipedia research by resuming my strand bikini search, I am only able to find regular bikinis now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Richard3120, I see your recent changes. I am tempted to just step in myself, but you are much more the expert so I will comment here.
    1. Bolded alternate titles are properly mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Elsewhere, they are unbolded. I think they should be boldly mentioned in the LEAD.
    2. Also, I think the Lead should summarize charted versions, given the dozens of versions that we are aware of.
    3. Also, although we don't have sources for the Connie Francis version on Connie Francis and The Kids Next Door, I believe that if a song is made by an artist or group that has a well-sourced article and is on an album that has a well-sourced article, we should mention that in a song article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added changes for nos. 1 and 3 – I don't think it's necessary to list every charting version in the lead, as many of these were in one country only. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
List of number-one singles of 1960 (Canada) has sources. However, these two articles contradict each other: List of number-one singles in Australia during the 1960s and List of Top 25 singles for 1960 in Australia in the absence of sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the contradiction is, Tony? One is a list of the number-one singles each week, and the other is the year-end chart. Both of these were calculated in retrospect from archive data, as Australia had no national chart until late 1966. Richard3120 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
O.K. so it never actually charted in in Australia and I was misunderstanding the pages. What about the Canada version? Those sources look real. Can we add that?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, it peaked at number two in Australia... if you believe that a chart created more than thirty years later can be considered official. But I don't think David Kent's retrospective charts are considered the authoritative word on the matter.
The problem is that back in 1960, the US and Norway were the only countries with an official music chart (other countries had music charts, such as Belgium and Italy, but the sample size and methodology of these charts is considered dubious - we've already seen that Belgium and the Netherlands only had a monthly chart, and created it by combining all competing versions of the same song). Canada's CHUM Chart (which I have added to this article), West Germany's Die Musik Markt chart and the UK's Record Retailer charts have become the official charts of those countries at the time, but only in retrospect – Record Retailer's chart was one of four competing charts during the 1960s in the UK, for example, and didn't become the official retrospective chart of the era until the late 1970s. Australia's de facto music chart, the Kent Report, began in 1974, the official New Zealand and Sweden charts in 1975, the German charts in 1978... charts before the mid-70s in any country other than the US, Canada, Norway and UK have to be treated carefully. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think List of number-one hits (Germany), List of 2011–12 figure skating season music, A Good Year or Record World, which all mention the song, be included in the song's article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added the information about A Good Year and the German number ones to the article. I'm not sure how "official" Record World's charts are considered for inclusion in an article. And I would think almost every popular song in history has been used as the music for a figure skating routine, so this is insignificant and trivial information to be included. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not advocating for Record World, but it seems that at one time there were three music mags with charts: RW, Cashbox and Billboard. I am not saying that RW is on par with the others, but the article suggests that they once had a similar place in the industry to the other two that I mention. Billboard seems to have emerged as the one that lasted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Now that we have pretty much fleshed out the content that is to be in the main body, the question is what should the WP:LEAD summarize. I think it should mention all versions that we are aware have reached number one if we don't want to mention all versions that have charted. I am thus not sure why the Italian name is in the LEAD and the Spanish names (Bikini Amarillo or Bikini A Lunares Amarillo) are not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sledgehammer (Fifth Harmony song)

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)

Sobre las Olas or Over the Waves?

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)

Titles

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)

No, they shouldn't, because within the body of the text the titles are not italicised, they are just enclosed within quotation marks... see MOS:POPMUSIC. Richard3120 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll revert my edit. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
MOS:TITLE, specifically MOS:QUOTETITLE, address this. Song are parts of larger works, such as albums in the case of modern recordings, are and so quoted while the larger works are italicized. Quoting of song titles applies to singles as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

How to distinct song?

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)

Can you give an example? I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking... Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the factor that determines about new song. I mean where is the border when you can say these are two songs. If one song uses different instrumental with different lyrics but same melody from another and when the same instrumental has different lyrics and title. Eurohunter (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you give an example where such a judgement call is necessary? Sergecross73 msg me 01:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
List of songs recorded by Basshunter. Single "Walk on Water" → promotional single "I Can Walk on Water I Can Fly" → song "I Can Walk on Water" (little different instrumental and title but same lyrics). "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" → "DotA" (officialy released as new single version) → "Sitter i luren och väntar på Adam Alsing" (different instrumental and lyrics, same melody, it was ringtone). "I'm Your Basscreator" → "Bass Creator" (contains additional lyrics). "Mellan oss två" → "Between the Two of Us" (diferent instrumental, title translation). "Boten Anna" → "Al final" (same instrumental, different singer but Basshunter is the main artist of "Al final"). Would be also weird to not include "Festfolk" [2006 Remix] from LOL <(^^,)> (original "Festfolk" comes from The Bassmachine) → "We Are the Waccos" (english version with different lyrics and title, same instrumental). "Evil Beat" → "The Beat" (the same song released on two albums with two titles). At the end "Boten Anna" and "Now You're Gone", "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" and "All I Ever Wanted" commonly described in media as "english versions" (personally I would call it english version if it would have translated lyrics). Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If I’m understanding you, I had similar questions about a song lists like this, and was told this: Because the article name is “List of songs recorded”, if separate studio recordings of a song exist, where they went in and recorded changes, then each recording is listed, but that remixes often were listed separately because they were often using the same recording as the original, and they were altered by another remix artist, and as such, weren’t considered a separate recording from the original artist. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Te Quiero

What is the reason that all titles capitalised? Spanish version don't capitalises them. Eurohunter (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

They're all works. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Eurohunter, you've confused the issue by linking to a disambiguation page anyway, where some of the titles are songs and some are other works. And the rules on other Wikipedias with different languages may be different to the English one, so you can't compare with the SPanish Wikipedia. But @Walter Görlitz: if we're just focusing on one particular song (knowing Eurohunter, he is concerned with "Te Quiero (Stromae song)"), it's a bit vague though... MOS:FOREIGNTITLE seems to suggest that a title in a foreign language, such as this "Te Quiero", should be in the capitalization of the original foreign language, whatever that is. "Non, je ne regrette rien", for example, has not been capitalized – should it be? I mean, both it and "Te Quiero" are songs, so there should be some consistency between them. I note that articles for foreign language films almost never capitalize the original foreign title, even though this is a work. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thought there is no difference beetwen works. Eurohunter (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
They're not being treated as FOREIGNTITLE as they are not foreign users of the words, there clear uses of the words in English media and that's what the articles seem to be discussing. In other words, what do sources say? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, for "Non, je ne regrette rien", it could be completely uncapitalized [3], or partly capitalized [4], or completely capitalized [5], depending on the journalist. So looking for sources doesn't give the answer, there needs to be a Wikipedia policy about this. Richard3120 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I would just use Spanish language rules and It's natural way for me. Eurohunter (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Wiwibloggs and Eurovix on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

RfC on categorizing all works by an artist by genre

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)

Discussion of The Singles Jukebox (thesinglesjukebox.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Bhad Bhabie AfDs

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"

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)

And now to Giant Steps (jazz composition). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Unsure why this is here: it's clear that the new article titles don't follow existing policies (WP:ATDAB, WP:NCDAB) and the infobox doesn't follow Template:Infobox song#Parameters. "Giant Steps" is included in the List of post-1950 jazz standards, with citations to fake books. Jazzstandards.com is used extensively as a source in the list and write-ups in its "About Personnel" section [6] make them appear to meet "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:SPS). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Because I didn't feel like being in a one-man discussion with a fairly new editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

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.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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:

  • 5 show "Verified by [name] Curator" (scroll down to "Last activities"). None show "Verified by" Musixmatch, community, or artist.
  • 19 don't appear to show any status, except "Last edit by".[9]
  • 5 show "These lyrics are waiting for review; If you found mistakes, please help us by correcting them", (some with "Last update on: July 25, 2017").[10]
  • 3 show "We detected some issues; [name] suggested changes to these lyrics" (again "Last update on: July 25, 2017").[11]

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)

Since it's unclear what MetroLyrics are "official and accurate", propose to remove its mention from WP:SONG#LYRICS:

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.

Also, propose to change the MetroLyrics entry at WP:NOTRSMUSIC: "Songwriter credits are unreliable; only lyrics that are "locked" (unable to be edited by users) are acceptable so long as the credits are correct (see also WP:SONG#LYRICS).
—Ojorojo (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is the right avenue. While, they have used Wikipedia in an attempt to improve their SEO, and it is now more difficult to determine if they actually host official lyrics, they are still official licensees of lyrics. We may need to modify the wording in other ways. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
MetroLyrics has shown that it is unable to provide a reliable product and should not be given exposure here. Even when it was boasting "the largest catalogue of licensed lyrics", a large percentage were not (I suppose in the world of online lyrics, if 15% are licensed, that qualifies as the largest). Even with its "Locked" designation, the lyrics now appear to able to be edited (via Musixmatch), and therefore it cannot be considered a reliable source. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I dislike MetroLyrics, but to claim it is unable to provide a reliable product is not even close to true. That it is using Musixmatch to stamp that lyrics are verified by them does not apply universally. Looking at two older entries: http://www.metrolyrics.com/waterloo-lyrics-abba.html http://www.metrolyrics.com/bohemian-rhapsody-lyrics-queen.html I see no such commentary, however a "featured" lyric: http://www.metrolyrics.com/kill-this-love-lyrics-blackpink.html has many problems. So we should suggest cautious use rather than a prohibition. Editors appear to want to add lyrics. Take a look at Da Da Da for instance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
"not even close to true"? MetroLyrics was added to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#Unreliable sources in April 2016 following these discussions 2016 Discussion and 2016 Discussion (2). Interesting that you brought up the commentary issue; an editor noted "I also saw that the site is listed as a mirror of Wikipedia (MetroLyrics) because they apparently have a scamy system to copy a Wikipedia article into the comment field of one of their pages."[13] The links to "Waterloo" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" do not show that these are verified (via Musixmatch). I'm not seeing anything that MetroLyrics should be a RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe this isn’t helpful, but I’ve always found it confusing that we link to lyrics at all. It doesn’t seem like something an encyclopedia would do. (Not to mention how prevalent lyrics are found on Google or YouTube nowadays. Just my passing thought, I don’t really feel all that strongly either way. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Extremely helpful. I've wondered the same. I think an easy solution would be to determine where we agreed that they should, or even could,be included. Without a consensus, we could create one to state they 1) do not assist in creating an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and 2) they could potentially violate copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Where appropriately licensed externally, I think it's appropriate for the same reason we provide links to texts and books (indirectly via ISBN link or otherwise). It's also the same reason we provide plot sections. --Izno (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
What is being proposed here is to remove two sentences, that due to changes at MetroLyrics, are no longer correct or valid. Nobody has addressed how to reconcile MetroLyrics' claims of "The lyrics to this song are deemed official and accurate" with Musixmatch's lack of verification for a large percentage of its lyrics (despite its claim that "In order to assure a standard of quality, Musixmatch shows the quality status of the lyrics"). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Go Your Own Way B-Class assessment

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)

Sources needed: King of Spain (song)

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

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)

I Promise (Radiohead song)

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)

I didn’t see a talk page discussion there, so I’ll comment here: How is the bus type significant? The other editor seems to say it’s important in the edit summaries, but nothing in the prose actually backs that claim up. I can’t imagine it’s worth including... Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't see why the bus type is of significance to the video either, but even if it were, the first reference doesn't mention it at all, and the other three simply say it's an Ikarus bus - there's no mention anywhere of the model number, so that should be removed, at least. Richard3120 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously I agree with you both, but didn't want to canvass. I'll revert the changes again and link to this discussion.
After I reverted the changes before, the editor went to some other articles I'd worked on and reverted some changes there too seemingly at random, presumably to make a WP:POINT. Popcornduff (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The editor is still at it, if anyone feels like contributing to the talk page discussion (I've made one now). Popcornduff (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Berlin Music Video Award

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)

Lists of number-one singles of each year

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)

If no one has created the article for the Lithuanian Singles chart, it won't get one. Some are clearly less important than others, at least to an English reader. Others seem to have fans who created them. So no, not all national charts will have one and probably never will on this project anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter:, lists of the UK number-one songs do exist - see 2018 in British music charts, and for the years before it. This article includes the number-one songs of several different charts in the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Plus there are the UK lists of number ones such as List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
US has decade lists and music in year lists too List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s → 2010 in American music → List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2018. Eurohunter (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: @Walter Görlitz: I would like to make one year list for UK singles chart and some other countries. Eurohunter (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Attempts have been made to make "by year" number-one song lists for the UK and they've been redirected to the "by decade" lists per WP:CONTENTFORK. Just because there are both for the US doesn't mean there should be; there has been discussion about this but consensus could not be reached. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: From my perspective they couldn't be redirected due to existance of other lists (US lists and featured lists). In other words all lists schould be redirected or restored. There is no intermediate solutions. There are even UK Dance charts by year so I already recreated one list for Sweden and I'm planing to make some more and one for UK. Eurohunter (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, your stance would go against most of the recent consensus on the matter. I’d recommend slowing down or you may end up seeing some of your efforts being redirected as well. Also, there doesn’t need to be 100% parity between different countries and these lists. There’s bound to be more US ones - it’s the biggest market for music in existence. (I’m not saying it’s the best, but it’s fundamentally true that it’s the biggest, and as such, sources focus on them more.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the point of having "20xx in British music charts" articles so that the various UK charts for each year can be added there? Richard3120 (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: US market is the biggest on the world and British/German is the biggest in Europe but it doesn't mean Swedish market should be trated in different way. In this way you couldn't write articles about Swedish songs because they were described only in Swedish media which has less audience than media of US or UK. Eurohunter (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
What philosophy are you operating under here? Because if it “well country x has the article, so should country y”, then you are wrong, that is fundamentally not how Wikipedia works. If your philosophy is something else, then please explain, as you’re not being clear about it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: US can have lists but UK and Sweden can't? Why? Swedish sales chart for sure would be more important chart than any airplay chart or Lebanon "chart". I would first remove German and Polish airplay year lists than Swedish sales list. Eurohunter (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you keep saying things, but you never say why. How are you coming to these conclusions? Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Otherwise you never could write about Swedish singles popular only in Sweden because their audience is too little in comparision with US. Most popular single in Sweden could mean nothing in US. Eurohunter (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
You’re not answering my question. I’m asking you, in a general sense, on what grounds are you deciding which of these articles should or should not exist? Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Probably most or almost all countries schould have their "top". Eurohunter (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Why? Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I'm suprised of these questions. What would you expect writing encyclopedia? Would you like to favor the biggests on the world than in region or every country independently? So as I said there would be articles only about US. Eurohunter (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, you keep on staying how things should be without stating why they should be that way. Is there a language barrier or something here? Because I still don’t really understand how you’re operating... Sergecross73 msg me 10:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: As I said every country should be trated independently so every country has their notable and non-notable works treated separetly. You can't compare Swedish and American number one because they have different range. Isn't it enough explanation? What is your opinion here? Eurohunter (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is the correct mindset. But it doesn’t feel like you’ve been applying that approach to any of the examples above. If you are, you haven’t been explaining it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 24 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)

I'm not sure but I think I could find some article about Swedish number ones in Aftonbladed (commentary on chart). It would be challenging to find them because it requires to search and read in Swedish, language I don't know and it can fail (I'm not sure I can find commentary about every 2006 number one). If we want to ulyimatelly clarify it. Schould this be redirected? Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
You keep referencing lists for Sweden as if they don't exist, yet they do. (List of number-one singles of the 2000s (Sweden), List of number-one singles of the 2010s (Sweden), List of number-one singles and albums in Sweden). Just improve those as they certainly need it, then there's no worry about you creating a content fork. You can always work on this in your user space and then present how you'd like to see it look. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Rota

Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 2#RfC: Rota may be of interest to this project.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Billboard database for streaming charts

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)

I’ve moved my response there, to keep discussion centralized. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Planned new charts from Billboard and Rolling Stone

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)

While there's no real dispute here, there's been very little input at all, so it probably would be good to get some more input on this one. It'd affect a lot of song articles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Result of RfC re: categorizing all works by an artist by genre

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)

I concur that this does mean that genre categories should not be associated with artist categories. Songs belong to genres, but that is a general comment that wasn't exactly within the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
So it wouldn't be better if we put "[music genre] albums by [artist]?" Like "Pop albums by Lady Gaga" or something? Erick (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Magiciandude, No, the album article should just have Category:Pop albums by American artists (or similar), assuming sourcing actually describes the album(s) as pop. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That would just make the category too cluttered I mean how many pop artists are there in United States alone and then≠≠ there's like traditional music or is it only one genres and their entire career I just don't see the point. I am much more in favor of categorizing an album by genre then the artist. Like in my case from the articles I worked on I would rather much categories saying salsa albums by Marc Anthony and pop albums by Marc Anthony thank just having so many salsa albums in a category. Erick (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Magiciandude, Then, if needed, we should create subcategories like Category:1990s pop albums by American artists, or whatever, but we can't keep just throwing artists into specific genre categories when they are not specifically applicable. There are different ways to move forward, hence why I've started this discussion. Are there any project/MoS pages needing to be updated? This is a big change. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 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)

No, I have no clue how to make this system workable. There is no logical way to solve this other than creating tens of thousands more categories or rectegorizing 200,000 album articles individually. In the future, categories like Category:Alternative rock albums by American artists will be flooded with thousands more entries necessitating fare more narrow sub-sub-subgenre by artist nationality intersections like Category:Jangle pop albums by American artists just to diffuse them. This will compound the problem of overly narrow intersection categories by having things like Category:Sadcore albums by Indonesian artists with one entry. This is disastrous if it's accepted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no comment now other than it's good that thread decided not to include genre categories in artist categories, and yes; I realize that's already been addressed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, Yes, thousands of articles will need to be re-categorized. This system was problematic from the start. Time to fix. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 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 to main page re: categories?

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:

  • 5. Other than Category:Songs by artist, "Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into at least two other subcategories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by country and one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs.
    [Something to the effect of] 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:

  • 2. Please do not place song articles directly in Category:Songs or Category:Singles (music).
  • 4. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category:<Artist name> songs" has not been added to this genre category.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Song vs Single (again?)

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
RecordedJune 1, 1964 (1964-06-01)
GenreRock
Length1:57
LabelParlophone (UK), Capitol (US)
Songwriter(s)Carl Perkins
Producer(s)George Martin
The Beatles US singles chronology
"I'll Cry Instead"
(1964) 		"Matchbox"
(1964) 		"I Feel Fine"
(1964)

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)

I think JG66's idea has a broader application and could provide more flexibility for newer formats and types of releases. The type (song vs single, promo, remix, etc.) and "from the album (or EP)" that are highlighted in the second header of the infobox are restrictive. Adding a "from the mixtape" parameter was suggested, but rather than attempt to cover all the possibilities, it would be easier to go with something like what JG is suggesting: remove these from the second header and add them after the release dates. It would also tie the release/format to a specific date, that now has to be clarified in cases of multiple entries with additional text in the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal (two versions of same song).

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)

Appears to be the same song with Dutch lyrics. The Heb article doesn't discuss that it has anything else that sets it apart from the original. How about You Don't Love Me (No, No, No) / You Don't Love Me (Willie Cobbs song)? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

List of number-one hits (Germany)

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 is associated with List of number-one hits (Germany) and all of the per-year entries are "List of number-one hits of YEAR (Germany)". Are you suggesting that they all move? Are all of the songs actually singles? Did any of the songs chart without an accompanying single?
I'm not sure if a move is merited though. The term, "hits", was translated to "Schlager" in German, and the term "single" does not have an equivalent to my understanding, although I have seen "singles" used directly more recently. That could explain why it was initially at "hits". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I know this problem but atleast Ireland had "singles". Eurohunter (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where the years 1953–1959 are sourced from – from 1959 to 1977 the charts published in Die Musikmarkt were generally accepted to be the standard West German music charts, and the Offizielle Deutsche Charts have now retroactively adopted them as the official German charts of the period. But I don't know where the pre-1959 charts come from, and no indication that they are "official". Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

UK Music Charts

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)

There is a move request now in place by another editor – Talk:UK Music Charts#Requested move 3 June 2019. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Songs

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)

In general, an article should pass WP:GNG... for songs, see WP:NMUSIC, and in particular WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
These sources don’t have to be in English btw; if there is significant non-trivial coverage in Italy or it charted there (generally, but not always - there are exceptions) or has been widely covered, it can and should be an article.. Toa Nidhiki05 12:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so if I understand correctly I'll have to spend the next few months to translate pages from Italian to English... :-D
As soon as I can, I start translating something. Thanks --Mice (it's read "Mìce") 12:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Identity Theory on the reliable sources noticeboard

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)

Release history

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)

I assume that’s a going for adds date. Since most songs don’t get a physical release and many radio singles don’t get a separate digital release, this is entirely acceptable AFAIK and I have used it. It’s also useful for staggered radio releases. Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s nothing I’ve ever added to articles I created or maintain. It just looks like someone was trying to imitate the album article format? I’m of the mindset that it’s probably not necessary, especially if there’s only two items in the table. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think Toa Nidhiki05 is right about why there's a distinct "release" date for a radio format and Sergecross73 is right about whether it's actually necessary. I've never been a big fan of "Release history" sections in general. Sometimes the tables are so short—as in the case of the one in "Panini"—that they're barely useful at all and/or would be trivially easy to cover somewhere else in the article, like an infobox or "Release" section. On the other hand, the tables for some popular & older albums would run so long that they'd be unusable clutter—if there were a "Release history" table for The White Album, it might run as long as 567 entries, at least according to the album's Discogs page. This is where an "External links" section comes in handy: a simple link to Discogs with Template:Discogs master is so much more practical and useful to anyone interested in this kind of info than reproducing it all on Wikipedia would ever be, imho. —BLZ · talk 22:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Most of the time it is not necessary. There are cases where it could be - I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song), an article I wrote, has one, but that’s because the song was released and charted in multiple different years and was promoted by multiple different record labels. But barring a situation like that I do not think there is a huge need for these sections on singles. Toa Nidhiki05 22:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:ELNO's #1 states to "[...] generally avoid providing external links to [...] Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article", with (the linked) WP:FACRITERIA stating in its #1(a) that a featured article "[...] is comprehensive [and] neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and in its #4 that considering the article's length "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style."
Considering these concerns, I suppose we'd have to decide if the release histories of music on various formats are "major facts or details [that] place the subject in context" and therefore should be summarised in the article in such a way that it can be considered a comprehensive article, or if this info would be "unnecessary detail", summarised or not. As has been raised, I think this would be context dependent; perhaps only particularly notable releases (e.g. 40th anniversary remaster box set type stuff) could be considered "necessary" for a "comprehensive" article. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_20&oldid=941855668"