Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Shape (song)

Can someone reassess Shape (song) please? Till 06:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

At quick glance (and that's really all I gave it), I think the article is clearly not a stub. I rated it a B only because rating it any higher would require a more involved procedure, as I understand it. Others are welcome to confirm my rating or nominate it higher. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Move Give It Away

A move discussion is taking place on the page Give It Away. Please give input. Oldag07 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER

Hi all, I've just come across WP:SONGCOVER, and I'm nonplussed. If covers need to meet WP:NSONGS on their own to even be mentioned, there are probably a few hundred song articles at least that need their cover sections culled. This guideline seems to contradict, or at least disregard, WP:NNC. So what gives? Is this a guideline for when a cover version should have its own section, such as Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder song)#Red Hot Chili Peppers version? That would make much more sense. --BDD (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. you're not the first to query this in this respect so a little clarification may be useful in the guideline. The first and foremost concern of the guideline is to ensure that everything about "the song" is kept together and not separated over several articles. The Higher Ground article is a perfect example of this working well. I interpret the rest as just because a song is performed on TV by an X-factor contestant or someone else, or performed live once or twice (irrespective of the notability of the artist) does not lend itself to a listing in the song of "other performances" The simple question is, does Yesterday require every recorded/performed version of the song listed, or is a sample list the ideal? --Richhoncho (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Yes, for many songs comprehensive lists of covers wouldn't be ideal. It seems best to just list a few examples, though that could be prone to edit warring for every editor trying to insert his or her favorite renditions (I'm not entirely innocent of this). I hadn't even thought about reality TV performances. Would a reasonable standard be that if the song appears on a notable album, it deserves mention—with the caveat that lists should be kept at a manageable length? --BDD (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

When I see a list getting too long I, and some other editors, are inclined to prune. Not sure you can work in "notable albums" because it is the songs which make albums notable anyway. There is a further problem when you go back pre-albums and songs would be released as "singles" by several artists within weeks of each other. So whatever is written in the guideline needs to accommodate different practices at different times. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere Over The Rainbow/What A Wonderful World

I don't create much song articles, but I just created Somewhere Over The Rainbow/What A Wonderful World since I thought it was crazy that this song did not have its own article. Anyway, if anyone is interested in making this better, please check it out and improve it. Remember (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

New release of B-side songs

I have a (possibly) quick procedural question. I'm currently working on JKT48, which releases songs by AKB48 and its sister groups in its Indonesian translation. The second single is actually a B-side song from AKB48's 14th single. Is the proper procedure to create a new subsection within the existing single's article or to create a new one (which will require establishing additional notability)? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ring of Fire

The usage of Ring of Fire is under discussion, see talk:Ring of Fire (song) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Help/Rfc

Requesting comments, content dispute here, WP:OWNERSHIP issue. NYSMy talk page 08:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger of Mattel v. MCA Records into Barbie Girl

A discussion of whether to merge Mattel v. MCA Records into Barbie Girl is currently under way. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Barbie Girl#Merger discussion. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Treacherous

The usage of Treacherous is under discussion, see talk:Treacherous (song) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Hey Ya!"

Hello. Concerns over the quality of the article Hey Ya! have been brought foward. Editors are welcome to comment on the thread which is located here and attempt to fix the issues. Thankyou. Till 08:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Hey Ya! for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 10:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a notability issue

happening about a particular version of a song at Talk:St. James Infirmary Blues - at the bottom of the talk page. A few more opinions, one way or another, might prevent an edit war. So... come one down. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Origin of Leonard Cohen's Bird on the Wire

I wanted to post this here instead of just editing the article myself, since I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor and don't want to make wholesale edits without getting some outside input first. The article on Bird on the Wire mentions that the song's melody may have been borrowed from another song, and has a sentences about what that song might be. But there's an interview with Kris Krisofferson which identifies a different song and seems more authoritative--Kristofferson relates a conversation he had with Cohen (basically Krisofferson mentions the song, and Cohen says he loves the artist and might have unconsciously borrowed the melody). Just wondering if I should go ahead and edit this, and if I should delete the sentence about "Turn Me On" or just add this information as another possibility. Also, since the citation would be to a webpage that contains an audio file of the interview, are there any special rules about how to format that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:326F:ABC0:E6CE:8FFF:FE42:3D42 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Musical parameters in infobox

I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, but I've started a discussion over at Template_talk:Infobox_song, which essentially asks whether tempo and key should have their own parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain

Is the song, Somebody Bigger Than You & I, in public domain now. I wanted to use the words in my book...of course giving credit to the writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.216.137 (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Denial (Sugababes song)

Hi, I was wondering if anyone was willing to make a comment(s) on the FAC for Denial (Sugababes song) which is here. If not, feel free to ignore this message Till 05:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg

File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg was deleted as copyright violation. The image, which is used in the template {{WikiProject Songs}} and related, will eventually disappear from the caché. I opened a discussion at TT:WPSONGS to discuss which image should replace it. You can join to it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording NSONG

An RfC has been started on the proposal to change the wording of WP:NSONG. Please join the discussion. Gong show 01:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have the Oasis album Heathen Chemistry booklet ?!?!

If you do then can you tell me what the credits and personnel are for "Stop Crying Your Heart Out", "Thank You for the Good Times" and "Shout It Out Loud" in the booklet please? Either on "Stop Crying Your Heart Out's talk page or on my user talk please, it would be very appreciated. — AARON • ^TALK 19:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Sixteen Reasons" (song popularized by Connie Stevens) - corrections

The Wikipedia article states:

  a duet with her Hawaiian Eye co-star Edd Byrnes: '"Kookie,
  Kookie (Lend Me Your Comb)'", a novelty spoken word number which
  reached #4.[11][16]

I think "Hawaiian Eye" should be changed to "77 Sunset Strip". This is because Edd was not in "Hawaiian Eye" but was in "77 Sunset Strip". Connie was in "Hawaiian Eye" and was occasionally in "77 Sunset Strip".

Also, where it says:

  the label refused to allow Stevens to perform the song on
  Hawaiian Eye and also prevented her from singing it on The Ed
  Sullivan Show.[17]

I suspect "Hawaiian Eye" should probably also be changed to "77 Sunset Strip".

Tparker24 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC) tparker24

Template:Faust navbox

I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is {{Faust navbox}}. I have been encouraged to invite all the relevant projects to participate in the two discussions going on about this template. Please come participate at Template talk:Faust navbox#Requested move and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#The_most_complicated_template_yet_.28Faust.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How to write song and single articles?

Is there anywhere a specific manual of style on how songs and singles should be written? Like for the section headers, what terms should be used? Which section should come first before the other?

I already know that the article starts with the lead and then we're supposed to talk about its background and then it's impact but in terms of impact how should that be styled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcl32791 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you take a look at MOS:MUSIC, MOS:ALBUM and specially WP:SONGS, you'll see some guidelines on creating such articles. Also, for reference, you may check featured articles on songs, which are considered to be the finest articles in Wikipedia about songs. There is a list of them right here. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Maharaj Jung London 1850 AD.jpg

File:Maharaj Jung London 1850 AD.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Navbox background for solo artists' songs

Forever, the background color for solo singers has been a yellow color for the navboxes created for them. Of course, this typically lists the artists' albums, songs, discography, and other related articles. When the number of articles for songs and/or singles begins to add up for an artist, the navbox is split and a separate template is created (see {{Rod Stewart songs}}, {{Elton John songs}}, {{Mary J. Blige singles}}, {{Chris Brown singles}} to list a few examples). Regardless of how the songs or singles have been split out, they are still use the {{navbox musical artist}} template using "solo_singer" as the background, which makes sense since it is just a split from the main template. For some reason, following the creation or repurposing of such templates as {{Britney Spears songs}} and {{Jennifer Lopez songs}}, some editors don't think the same color scheme should apply (even though they still add the "background=solo_singer" in the generic {{Navbox}} template, which of course won't have any affect on the background color. I think it best to continue using the "navbox musical artist" template for all musical artist templates (with the appropriate background), no matter how they end up being subdivided for a consistent color scheme and based on the precendent set for other music artist navboxes that focus on the artist's singles or songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox secondary video versions

Someone removed a secondary version of a video from "ThatPower" with this edit. Was this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

tbh, the video links should appear in the bottom in an external links section as opposed to in the infobox. It unnecessarily lengthens the infobox to include them there. See Trouble (Leona Lewis song) as an example. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Song article nominated for FA

The article Slug (song) has been nominated to be a featured article, but no comments have been made since its nomination last month. If anyone is interested, please review the article and leave comments at WP:Featured article candidates/Slug (song)/archive2. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

San Tropez

List of songs recorded by Scissor Sisters

The List of songs recorded by Scissor Sisters is currently a Featured List candidate. Please leave comments to help this list reach FL status. Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of song/single infoboxes

A guideline for the use of song/single infoboxes in song articles would be helpful. In some articles [1] they are clearly overused. WP:LAYIM is a guideline that addresses use of images and provides some wording which may be applicable. The main ideas are::

Only one infobox in the opening or lead paragraph
Only one infobox per section placed in the relevant section
Avoid using infoboxes when they "stack up". This means there are too many infoboxes for the article.
Avoid using infoboxes when they "strip down" to the next section. This means the section is too short for an infobox.
Stacking or stripping down may be avoided by trimming the infobox (removing the image and/or track/succession listing) to make it smaller
When using {{infobox standard}}, additional infoboxes should not be used (should the "recorded by" & "performed by" parameters be used if this info is in the text or vice versa?)

Thoughts/ideas? Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Separate system for singles as opposed to songs

I believe it would make more sense for there to be a separate system (including maybe a separate WikiProject) for singles as opposed to songs. For one, having, for example, Charlotte Sometimes (song) as the title of an article that is supposed to be about a single is just plain inappropriate to me.

Would anyone support this proposal?

As a result, the naming system would need to be changed. "(song)" in the article title would need to be changed to "(single)" where appropriate. The issue of how to title articles on singles with two sides is also raised: Charlotte Sometimes vs. Charlotte Sometimes/Splintered in Her Head (or a variation on the latter). Changes would also need to occur to the lead sentence ("Charlotte Sometimes" is a single by [...] vs. "Charlotte Sometimes"/"Splintered in Her Head" is a single by [...]) and also the title of the infobox ("Charlotte Sometimes" vs. "Charlotte Sometimes"/"Splintered in Her Head"). Lachlan Foley 05:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few reasons why this would be just plain wrong, the main ones are:

you are suggesting, effectively, separating "the song" from "the single",

but we already do that. firstly with the separate infobox, {{Infobox single}}, but secondly because there are already articles which refer to the subject as being a single as well as articles which refer purely to a song. Lachlan Foley 12:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

a song is a piece of music with words and a single is the method of selling that song. Are you really suggesting the packaging is more important than the product?
If you want the marketing information, discographies are a much nicer way of gathering the information.

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Beatles song articles

Should WPSONGS banners be deleted from Beatles song articles? I noticed a talk page comment saying that WPSONGS was removed because WPBEATLES handles the same functionality? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No. WP Beatles covers all Beatles articles, WP Songs covers all song articles. The two happen to overlap for this article; both WikiProjects are involved. Adabow (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The WPSongs banner can be removed, Providing |song=yes| is added into the Beatle template when appropriate. For obvious reasons not everything WPBeatle appears in WPSongs. An example can be found at Talk:London Town (Wings song). Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that banner did that. Sorry, yes go for it. Adabow (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting input on Talk:Mercy (Duffy song)#Merger proposal

Please join the discussion, it was proposed in February that Dancing Queen (Girls' Generation song) be merged into Mercy (Duffy song). So far, no consensus has been reached and discussion is currently at halt.

"Dancing Queen" is a cover version of "Mercy" in Korean. The main argument of the opposing team is that "Dancing Queen" is "a different song" because "it's in two different languages" and "a hip-hop remake, beat sample".

"Dancing Queen" doesn't merely sample "Mercy" like Hung Up samples Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight). The music used is mostly the same, ~~slightly~~ with a drum/bass/whatever going through at some points. The lyrics are sung to the exact same melody, tone, etc. The lyrics are not a direct translation.

Judge for yourselves: Mercy and Dancing Queen Thanks. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Creation of "The One" Wikipedia page

There needs to be a Wikipedia page for Tamar Braxton's song "The One" .... soon!!!

EricEgo2012 (Talk) 06:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles with a NA class

I'm working through the unassessed song articles category and then checked out the NA-class articles, and there seems to be a rather large number of them. Some do not appear to actually be NA-class articles. Perhaps something could be done about this? Thanks, kikichugirl (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: It appears that many of these articles are actually redirect-class articles. kikichugirl (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be able to be fixed so song articles assessed as "redirect" can go into Category:Redirect-Class song articles rather than Category:NA-Class song articles. The only thing going into the redirect-class song articles category are Beatles-related articles assessed as redirect using the song parameter. I'd like to see all redirect-class song articles moved from the NA to the redirect category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to question, too, the existence of talk pages without actual text other than the Wikiproject header. Do they add anything, even though they're just redirects? And I wondered, at first, because oh my that is a large number of NA-class articles. kikichugirl (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Starcheer, move the redirects from NA to redirect. In response to Kikichugirl, there are a large number of redirects for several reasons, and I will try and list some of them

Editors who will go through their favorite artist and add every song from every album as a redirect
Editors who are convinced every song requires an article, only to be redirected.
Editors who see AfD's and PRODs and convert to redirects because they are "reasonable" search terms.
Because I add redirects and NAs as appropriate because they are songs and part of the project (even if, in reality, they can be forgotten about).
Because a redirect to the album talkpage would not be an option.

In respect to the comment that not all of them are NA/Redirect class - that's simple, they were probably at some time a redirect/NA, but have changed - but not many Wikipedians are actually looking at the classification in WPSongs, so a big thankyou, Kikichugirl, and any others who are looking at the project classification, for your help.--Richhoncho (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Richhoncho. You have a good point. Are we considering Redirect to be the same as NA-class (that is, interchangeable)? I do realize that many of these articles end up being redirected to the relevant article, and I checked WP: Wikiproject Albums and they seem to have zero NA-class articles. kikichugirl (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My view is a "redirect" is a song redirected to another page (album, EP, artist). Whereas a NA is a "non-article without a redirect" - there are one or two of them, but not many. It's a programming thing to move from NA to redirect, in addition to Beatle redirects I think the Pink Floyd redirects go directly into redirect. Perhaps Starcheer can do the honors, I don't know how! --Richhoncho (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I requested the change at Template talk:WikiProject Songs but they want a broader consensus formed first, I guess. Maybe a few others could chime in here about the merits of having "redirect-class" pages being placed in Category:Redirect-Class song articles rather than Category:NA-Class song articles. It would be in line with what WP:ALBUMS does and would complement Category:Redirects from songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support this, as it provides clarification and a better overview of types of articles. In response to kikichugirl, I don't see the point of adding WikiProject banners to redirect talk pages, but in the case of merges, often a talk page is already present (with discussions). In these cases, the class is set to redirect, rather than deleting the WP banners. Adabow (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Support change proposed at Template talk:WikiProject Songs per above discussion. And yeah, what I meant was simply creating the talk page just to add the banner when there is virtually no content on the article page itself. --kikichugirl (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Support. In confirmation of my comment above -not trying to load my POV!--Richhoncho (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect influences and what is a European American?

What exactly is a "European American"?? First off, you are lumping all European cultures together where they should not be; there are very distinct differences between the countries of Europe in every respect, especially in the 19th century. Second, there is no such designation or people known as "European Americans"; more made up PC run amok. Finally, this song and many like it was pure back country "American" in its orgin and influence; being primarily of Irish, Scotish and British flavor. Not German or French or even Dutch, and no, not even Black in its influence. Stop with the assumptions and uninformed opinions and just present the facts. I think there would be many music historians who would take issue with you marking this as a Minstrel Tune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.22.243.171 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean a specific article and have accidentally posted to the project talk page instead of the article talk page itself? Or could you link to the article you mean? --kikichugirl ^inquire 05:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject like Jack (Breach song) or Limbo (Daddy Yankee song) which are the only articles with this title but apparently need disambiguation, but at the same time will affect articles with (song) disambiguation titles, in case if a new song is released like Revolution (song), Thriller (song) or Hey Jude. The discussion can be found at WT:D. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sortable tables on "List of UK Top 10 singles"

There are lots of pages of the type "List of UK Top 10 Singles in XXXX" where X is the year. From 2010 forward these pages use a lovely "sortable" table, for which you can choose how it should be ordered (by name, by date, by weeks in chart, etc.). However a different format is used for pre-2010 pages, which all seem to have "non-sortable" tables.

I think the sortable tables look neat and I would be happy to go through the pre-2010 years and change it to fit the post-2010 style. However I just want to make sure that other people think this is a good idea. I don't suppose there is a reason the pre-2010 tables look different? Qlexander (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not know of the existence of these tables, but if I ever have occasion to visit them...YES, I would want them ALL to be sortable.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sample of Daft Punk's Da Funk.ogg

file:Sample of Daft Punk's Da Funk.ogg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

VEVO Certified ?? Is this real?

Please see here. There it indicates winning a VEVO certificaton of 100.000.000 (sic) views. Also the statement "On August the 6th, 'Come And Get It' got over 100,000,000 views on YouTube, making it her 5th VEVO Certified song." appears here in Music video section. I am unaware of this being any kind of an official certification or award.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It should just be mentioned in the music video prose. "...reached 100 million views on [artist]'s Vevo YouTube channel on [date]." I wouldn't list it as an award by any means. Adabow (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please reassess Blurred Lines?

This song is stuck at "start" for quite a time and I am pretty sure it should be ranked higher, since it is styled and referenced better than other "start" songs.ZoharN (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article and found that it is indeed worth a higher rating than Start, so I upgraded it. Andrew³²⁷ 21:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese songs and albums

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Japanese song and album titles in regards to Japanese song titles and WP:SONG is relevant to the discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of AFD

I nominated an article about a song for deletion a week ago but nobody has participated in the discussion. Therefore I am notifying the relevant Wikiproject in hopes of building a consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picture Perfect (Sevendust song). Thanks, Andrew³²⁷ 21:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Radio add date makes a song a single?

I just want a confirmation about this: if a song has a radio add date, like Lose Yourself to Dance, it automatically becomes a single, right? Not a promotional single? Decodet (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For US radio adds, 100% yes. For non-US radio adds there seems to be less consensus. Adabow (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Singles template Language field

Please see suggestion at Template talk:Infobox single Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Sabah tanah airku

Sabah state anthem

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanzai94 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the Correct Way to Treat Remixes?

I'm a little stuck as to how we treat remixes of singles. Consider the following examples:

"Check It Out", a song by will.i.am and Nicki Minaj

Main single features just Nicki Minaj
"Special Mix" features Cheryl Cole.
Single page lists Minaj's chronology, single is listed in Minaj's discography.
Special mix is listed in Cole's discography as "featured single", Cole's single chronology is not listed discography on the single's page.

"Girl on Fire", a song by Alicia Keys

Three versions of the song all released as a single, one features Minaj (dubbed inferno version), two don't (blue light and main versions).
The single page doesn't feature Minaj or her single chronology
Girl on Fire is listed in Minaj's chronology.

There's also other examples of this such as "Bitch, Don't Kill My Vibe" where the original version is featureless but was released as a single along with two other remixes, one featuring Emeli Sandé and one featuring Jay-Z. My question is, when is the correct time to include an artist's chronology in the infobox when a single is remixed? Sometimes it is not appropriate to separate the standard single from the remix by creating a seperating infobox and section, as was done for "Cockiness (Love It) (Remix)" at "Cockiness". → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Land of 1000 dances - undue prominence given to Ted Nugent

This article includes Nugent's version as the third infobox besides also having the "Ted Nugent" template at the foot of the article. I doubt if either of these are warranted. Roy Orbison and Patti Smith's versions are far more notable. I suspect someone is pushing an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.141.246 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Sabah tanah airku

sabah state anthem

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanzai94 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy Days theme article stub improvement

Should the article Happy Days (TV theme) mention that the song was first recorded by Jim Haas and used for the closing credits for seasons 1-2, later recorded by Pratt & McClain and used as the main theme and for the closing credits for seasons 3-10, then later recorded by Bobby Arvon for season 11? This might make it more than a stub. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources for all of those recordings to confirm that they are real then yes, I think that's perfectly fine. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Including iTunes external links

An editor recently created an article for a single, which was exclusively released through iTunes. The editor included an external link (in the External Links section) directly to the iTunes page where you can buy the song. Is this ok? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not OK, per WP:ADV. Links to things like the music video (uploaded by a representative of the artist) and a licenced lyrics provider are acceptable. iTunes Store links are acceptable, however, as sources for verifying aspects of a release; obviously these would be as inline citations in the references section. Adabow (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

‎File:BNL BigBang.jpg

This image is nominated for deletion. Please help improve consensus by joining in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If a b-side a single?

I note that some b-sides are noted as being singles. On a piece of plastic I would have called "the single" the a-side and the b-side would not be a single. Do I have agreement? Do we have any guidelines on this? Should we have guidelines? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The b-side of a vinyl pressing was not usually a single. It was typically a lesser song from the most recent album by the same artist, or a song that was not included on the album. In some cases, the b-side was another featured song promoted as a single. It all depends on the actions of the record company: did they promote the b-side as a single?

In a very few cases, the b-side was very successful simply because of listener demand. In that case, the b-side would be a hit song, and if the record company responded with some promotional support for the song then it would be considered a single. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies How are song articles reassessed

I have done some work on Misha B's "Home Run" (song). Is it still a stub, how can it better improved. Bodney (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of songs

Where can I request an assessment of a song? There's a list for albums (WP:ALBUM/A#Requesting an assessment), but I can't find a similar one for songs. — Mayast (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You may do so right here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I'd like to request assessment of "There Goes Our Love Again", "Formaldehyde (song)", "Why'd You Only Call Me When You're High?" (they'll probably be start-class) and "Into the Wild (song)". Thanks! — Mayast (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Done For better or worse, agree or disagree, these are done. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And I really appreciate your comments in the edit summary :) — Mayast (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Could I also ask for assessment of Moving (Travis song)? — Mayast (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Already done – thanks, Adabow! — Mayast (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

...and another one, Who We Are (Switchfoot song)? :) — Mayast (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Trouble (Neon Jungle song)

This Neon Jungle song was speedy tagged and was a sentence with no refs. I deleted it, perhaps in err. Could someone please weigh-in at my talk: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Trouble (Neon Jungle song)

I don't really understand songs, so would like to know if it's notable. Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment Requests and Invitation

Please could someone kindly re-assess (and/or fix/improve/recommend) Here's to Everything (Ooh La La) and Do You Think of Me ...very much appreciated.

I am having a good discussion about this artist's ( Misha B ) genres on her talk page MUSIC GENRES, third party opinions are most welcome. Bodney (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

CamelCase song title

I started a discussion at Talk:Permawar about whether the article should be at Permawar or PermaWar. I haven't received any responses, so I figured I'd ask those here to post a reply there, as I'm not 100% sure if my argument is sound, or if it is wrong. Please comment if you have a minute to take a look. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about infobox treatment for album tracks released as B-sides

Hi. I've started a discussion on Template talk:Infobox single about which infobox to use in a 1970s song article when an album track was released as a B-side, either in advance of the album or some time afterwards. Please join in if you've got any thoughts on the issue. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Song covers and categories

Hi, I was wondering whether categories for artists who covered a particular song should be included in the song's article. I feel that a category named "Artist_X songs" suggests that this Artist_X is an original artist of songs included in that category. So, intuitively, only categories for original artists should be included in songs' articles.
I see in the guidelines (WP:SONG#Categories) that a category should only be included if it's a defining characteristic of the song. An example with The Rolling Stones and The Temptations is mentioned, and I would agree that if a cover version eg. becomes more popular than the original version of the song (outshines it), it is the song's defining characteristic. However, many song articles include multiple categories for various artists who have performed those songs over the years, eg. "Moon River". How is the fact that eg. Trini Lopez, Westlife or The Killers have covered this song its defining characteristic?
I guess I could live with leaving "Artist_X songs" category if Artist_X's version was for example released as a single that was a real hit, and it would have its own section and an infobox in that article (like with Beat It#Fall Out Boy version). But when a cover version by Artist_X is mentioned in just one sentence (or on a list of cover versions) and wasn't very notable, shouldn't the category "Artist_X songs" be removed? — Mayast (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I could understand categorizing "Come Together" in Category:Aerosmith songs, but not "I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Love You)", even though right now both are. The former received notability in its own right as a hit single by Aerosmith while the latter was just one among a selection of covers the band recorded for its Honkin' on Bobo album. A lot of artists have recorded albums of only cover songs, and there is no need to categorize each song as a song by such artists in every case. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps on the original artist should have their "Artist X songs" category listed? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely the recording should be notable enough to warrant a separate sub-section of the article? Which raises issues over the example given. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some assessment required

O Heeriye, new article up for a DYK. Can't review it myself, don't know much about them also so will be glad if someone assesses it. Sohambanerjee1998 14:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment. Sohambanerjee1998 13:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not categorizing singles by artist

I made some comments in this discussion regarding the practice of not categorizing singles by artist. I have said about all I know about the issue, but someone who knows more about the background and/or the rationale could comment there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:James singles

Category:James singles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.
This concerns the post above this one. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding first line of lyrics

Please see suggestion to place example in the WP:LYRICS guideline.
Also unrelated, previous suggestion about optional language paramter in single infobox. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of songs

I'd like to request an assessment of Who We Are (Switchfoot song) and Of the Night (song). — Mayast (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

i've assessed Who We Are (Switchfoot song) at C-class. i'll do the other later if no one gets around to it in the meantime! ~ Boomur [☎] 17:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

One missing...Phil Collins-In Too Deep 2602:306:25F0:FFC9:180A:9EA8:A47A:E7A4 (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Brad Grantham 10/21/2013

Wherever you will go by The Calling

Hello

FYI: Wherever You Will Go by The Calling was released in 2001 not 2014. Thought you might want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.121 (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I corrected that. Unfortunatelly, there are many vandals on Wikipedia and one of them changed the date yesterday. Mayast (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

GA reviewers needed

The Good Article project has a bit of a backlog in popular music; out of the five oldest nominations on the project right now, for example, all five are popular music-related. Unfortunately, this is an area where WP:GAN always gets more editors interested in nominating, but few in reviewing. Would anyone be willing to review an article or two to help reduce the wait? It doesn't take long, helps out other editors, and is a fun way to learn about some off-beat material. Cheers and thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Evil Eye (Franz Ferdinand song)

I would like to ask for assessment of Evil Eye (Franz Ferdinand song). — Mayast (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear God (XTC song)

I would like editors from this project to take a look at Dear God (XTC song) as there is an edit war ongoing relating to the covers section. On the talk page, I cited policy that says third party sources must be cited that indicate that a cover version is notable, but one editor simply will not listen. As editors involved in this project should be well-versed in these sorts of questions, I would like some other opinions, please. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

i think both of you are in violation of WP:3RR. however, a cursory Google search suggests that you are correct in your analysis that the cover does not meet WP:NSONGS. the only web sources i have found that discuss the cover at all are the Chalkhills fansite and an Allmusic review. that article sure could use some fleshing out, though. ~ Boomur [☎] 20:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The article could certainly use improvement, including more sources, but it does not need another covers section filled with nonnotable recordings, as it has had in the past. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The MacLachlan cover was not so notable as to be worthy of mention. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Title song from the movie Gigi

The music is attributed to Frederick Loewe for the 1958 movie "Gigi." In fact, the title song won the Academy Award for best song that year. Yet, the music appears almost in its entirety in the 1932 cartoon "Betty Boop's Penthouse." I believe the same melody appears in other Betty Boop cartoons. Does anybody know where the tune arose? Was it open domain by the time Loewe used it? Does he deserve credit? Planetguy (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What is a hit?

I am going back and forth with an editor about whether songs are "hits" "major hits" and/or "minor hits." I have my scale for these (Top 10, Top 40, Top 100) but am wondering if there is a standard that can be employed when using these terms? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer is whatever the sources say it is, it is. It's not for editors to voice opinions. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, of course, but I think it's okay, in general, to use hit in place of other words like popular or successful, as long as the subject is identified with such a term in some source. It's essentially a synonym for those words, without an exact technical meaning. ~ Boomur [☎] 18:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to get into an argument about these this, but "hit" and "major hits" etc?" Says who? The underlying problem above is two editors cannot agree on the meaning of "hit," but by deferring to referenced sources there can be agreement. One man's meat is another man's poison. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

oh, I'm not making any statements about "major" or "minor" hits—I think those terms seem arbitrary. I'm just saying that if a source says a song was a "popular" single, it's safe to call it a "hit", as well, per the definition of the word. ~ Boomur [☎] 19:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In which case I shall happily defer to you. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER

This Talk:It's Nobody's Fault but Mine#Merging 11/2013 may be an interesting discussion for WP:SONGCOVER. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for singles/songs to album article

I have asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Redirects_for_singles.2Fsongs_to_album_article which may be relevant to this page too. (the question is: "I see Category:John Lennon songs, Category:Bob Dylan songs contains many album songs, presumably so that Users can find them in A-Z using category. Is this practice encouraged/discouraged?" ) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seen It All (song) - Help needed with disambiguation page

When you type "seen it all" in the search field, you get redirected to this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Seen_It_All , ("See You on the Other Side") when in fact there is another page, it should show first imho: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Seen_It_All_%28song%29

I tried to fix the redirect, but it was instantly fixed by a bot, so obviously I don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages. Help would be appreciated.

Greetings, MagicGH (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

i don't know much about ClueBot's vandalism criteria, but i'm guessing you got reverted for being a new editor and for lacking an edit summary. i have no idea why "Seen It All" redirects to See You on the Other Side. however, the Seen It All (song) article should, in fact, be moved to Seen It All, perhaps with a hatnote directing users to the "See You on the Other Side" disambig. someone else will have to carry out the move, though, as it requires deleting the current page at Seen It All. thanks for the note ~ Boomur [☎] 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

note: i just looked into it a bit more, and "Seen It All" is also a song on korn's See You on the Other Side, aka See You on the Other Side (Korn album). korn's "seen it all" was deemed too non-notable for an article and redirected to See You on the Other Side, although now it should probably redirect to the page for the korn album or the bugg song should be moved to that space — and the latter is our best bet, methinks. again, a hatnote can be used for those in search of korn. ~ Boomur [☎] 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I requested the deletion of the current redirect to make room for moving Seen It All (song). We'll be able to add the hatnote for song by Korn after the move. Mayast (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Some assessment required

Can this article be reviewed for quality? Thanks. Soham 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment for B-class

I'd like to ask for assessment of "Atlas" (Coldplay song) for B-class. Mayast (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite there yet. There needs to be a discussion of chart performance; tables are a supplement, not a replacement for prose. The lead should be expanded to cover all sections and include no new material. (MOS:LEAD). Adabow (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll keep working on that :) Mayast (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a "Commercial performance" section, and tried to cover other sections in the lead. This is the very first article that I'm trying to get to B-class, and I'm not sure what else should be included there. Could you please take another look? Mayast (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rocket Man (I Think It's Going to Be a Long, Long Time)

The requested move has been active for over a month. Care to comment there? --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Interpret WP:NSONG for me, please

I typically write about historic sites (my most recent work), so WP:NSONG and its interpretations are unfamiliar to me. How do we enforce it in regard to songs by major composers: do we assume that there's sufficient coverage for them to be notable, or do we tend to redirect a little-referenced stub instead of retaining it? I'm thinking of throwing something together for "O Jesulein süß, o Jesulein mild!", BWV 493, but I'm not sure if appearances in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (volume 4, page 800) and one JSTOR article are sufficient for a Bach piece (see List of songs and arias of Johann Sebastian Bach), or if I should wait to find more. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:REFERS and songs

I would welcome any comments for a thread I started over at Wikipedia_talk:Writing_better_articles#WP:REFERS_and_songs. It relates to how intros to song articles are written. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of "In the House of Stone and Light" song by Martin Page

In the House of Stone and Light seems to not have quite the right framework.

I am an Earth Scientist, a shy one at that, and the mecca of such natural sciences is the Grand Canyon. It has been referred to as The House of Stone and Light in at least one book about this wonder. The video itself has no references to the Canyon which is disappointing. Two of the references, Mount Kailas and Havasupai Shaman refer to the area and shaman is on of the terms for the medicine man of the American Indians.

I cannot fault the words, which I wish were included.

I have been in places, not nearly as grand, that gives me a similar feeling. The words are spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carcardon 2050 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg

This image is still nominated for deletion. See Material Girl before commenting there. --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Come a Little Closer (Cage the Elephant song) addition

Approximately 2 months ago, Cage the Elephant's VEVO channel on YouTube released the music video for their recent single "Come a Little Closer". Another section may need to be added to include this recent addition to this song. This may help extend the page and help improve the quality of the page. 162.40.240.36 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC) a Wikipedian viewer

Capitalization of song parenthetical subtitles

There's a bit of a dispute going on over the capitalization of song parenthetical subtitles (like "Album Version" vs. "album version", etc.). I tried and failed to find any existing guidelines specific to parenthetical subtitles, but the general capitalization guidelines seem to support the capitalized version. Current practice seems to lean towards non-capitalization, as does my vague sense of the usual practice outside Wikipedia. However, in various liner note track lists, the parenthetical subtitles are capitalized. Views from other editors would be gratefully welcomed. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

capitalization for page titles and headings should follow WP:TITLE (also see WP:NCDAB). as for listing titles in track listings, i think, objectively, the name should be used as printed in the liner notes—it's not Wikipedia's place to recapitalize titles that are printed in a primary source. subjectively, though, lowercase makes more sense to me. ~ Boomur [☎] 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lower case makes more sense. Sometimes a record company will write a song title differently on the product itself versus the supporting materials. The label cannot always be trusted. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In the case of things like "radio edit" or "album version", I think we should not capitalise these. These are not "parenthetical subtitles" (like "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)"), but rather descriptors about the song. Things get a little murky when we get into remixes, at which point I usually go with MOS:CT and consider them part of the title. But generally I look at whether it is part of the title or a descriptor. If part of the title, I add it to the title# parameter of Template:Track listing, and if a descriptor, to the note# parameter. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Single or not? Available for download on iTunes album page

Hi, I think I need some help deciding whether "Bows & Arrows" from Education, Education, Education & War by Kaiser Chiefs is a single or not. The song is available on iTunes as a free download upon pre-order of the album (confirmed on the label's website), but you can also download it independently for £0.99 (see iTunes), which I think can be a factor confirming its release as a single. However, it doesn't have its own webpage on iTunes, and I haven't found any truly reliable sources saying it's in fact a single.
Also note that both "Bows & Arrows" and "Misery Company" (another track from the album) have been available for streaming on the band's Soundcloud profile, but only "B&A" can be downloaded from iTunes. I always have a problem with cases like this, so I'd appreciate some clarification. — Mayast (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Check non-iTunes download stores outside of the UK and see if it's available on any of them. In this case, it's being sold in France as a single on at least 7digital, Amazon MP3 and Qobuz. -- I need a name (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been no independent release, only a preorder taster. If the song were purchased as a whole item (rather than as part of an album) or sent to radio as well as being made available along with preorder, then I would say it is a single, but in this case, no. Adabow (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I understand that in a similar case, if the song is nowhere to be found with the exception of iTunes, the answer is NO? That's very useful for the future, thanks :)
However, as I need a name noted, "Bows & Arrows" can be found for example on Amazon.fr (and the cover matches the artwork recently used by the band on Facebook, which is a cherry on top. Thanks for the French stores tip!), so I'll go with YES this time.
Anyway, I think that lives of some Wikipedia Contributors would be a bit easier if every song called "a single" by an artist/media/fans would be released to digital stores as a separate item, with its own cover. There would be much less confusion, heated discussions, edit warring, etc.
Thanks for the replies! — Mayast (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Music Blvd lyrics Links

I want the approval to add music blvd lyrics links in the external links section of different songs page because already existing lyrics link is of metrolyrics which is not accessible (banned) in Pakistan. This way users from Pakistan can get access to an alternate lyrics website from different wikipedia songs pages. Thanks. Sibtain 007 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sibtain 007: - As I posted on your talk page, your additions such as this edit include a link to MusicBlvd. It appears that Wikipedia's article on MusicBlvd is about an unrelated defunct company. Going from http://musicblvd.com and clicking "CONTACT" takes you to http://actionfactory.com/contact/ which shows they call the website "Music Blvd" (although that's not obvious from their logo). If there's consensus to add these links, I suggest you use "Music Blvd" (with a space and no wikilink) instead of "MusicBlvd". Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes I understand that MusicBlvd is an unrelated defunct company. That was a mistake and I ensure you that I will use a space and won't make it a wikilink. thanks.

Sibtain 007 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert here, but if I recall correctly, MetroLyrics is preferred over other lyrics databases because of copyright law/licensing. Basically, it pays royalties to songwriters, and I'm not sure if Music Blvd pays them as well. However, I can't find a link which would state that MetroLyrics is the only website that can be used on Wikipedia; here's the only thing I could find: Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos. — Mayast (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are also mentioned some other sites: MTV.com, CMT.com, and Yahoo Music. Mayast (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I was not meant to overwrite the already existing metrolyrics link i just meant to add an alternative lyrics link. I found the most convenient one Music blvd lyrics.Sibtain 007 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I do not trust the MusicBlvd website and oppose linking to it. Unlike the MetroLyrics website, I find that none of the pages at MusicBlvd are marked as copyrighted and there is no indication that the website is fully licensed or copyright compliant. The website only issues a generalized statement for complaints about copyright infringement, instead of a more extensive copyright statement like at CBSi (MetroLyrics parent company). In addition, Music Blvd seems to misrepresent itself, falsely claiming here that it is the original Music Boulevard website from 1995. IMO it is best not to link to the website unless these discrepancies are adequately resolved. As Mayast points out, there are plenty of properly licensed websites which can be used for lyrics. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:COPYLINK. Most 3rd party sites quoting lyrics do NOT have permission. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

MusicBlvd is a fully licensed lyrics site by using the MusixMatch API. They have an enterprise license that can be found here -- developer.musixmatch.com. MusixMatch gives digital assets to the publisher (MusicBlvd) to publish on their website to give them credit. There are MusixMatch logos on everypage of MusicBlvd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystanburke (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's three accounts and one IP so far that have added links to musicblvd.com in the last week. This is spam. I've reverted the remaining links, opened a SPI and filed a WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

MusicBlvd is a fully licensed lyrics site by using the MusixMatch API. They have an enterprise license that can be found here -- developer.musixmatch.com. MusixMatch gives digital assets to the publisher (MusicBlvd) to publish on their website to give them credit. There are MusixMatch logos on everypage of MusicBlvd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystanburke (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.77.98 (talk)

Here is MusicBlvd's response and documentation proving these claim by some the editors here are false. Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers. Trystanburke (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting post, which makes me wonder:

Does it appear to anyone else that the email from Natalie to Gianluca is dated "Fri Dec 20, 2013" (which would be after the claims above, and would be a good reason to attempt to strike it out)?
Where is this "list of licensed services", and when was it updated to include Musicblvd.com? Is it on http://www.nmpa.org? (Note: It's good to see that MusicBlvd.com is NOT listed on NMPA's list of Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013)
Since the post states "editors from one of our favorite online resources do a poor job in due diligence", what would have been reasonable due diligence?

GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback GoingBatty.

The email's date is irrelevant as you can clearly see the MusixMatch API usage far prior to that date. This letter seems to be requested by MusicBlvd specifically for the editors of Wikipedia to confirm the relationship between MusixMatch and the NMPA's. In the end, it looks like they are legally licensed.
There is no public list for the licensed services, but it looks like you can confirm by requesting with nmadaj@nmpa.org and Gianluca@musixmatch.com
Reasonable due diligence is understanding who the lyrics licensing services are which are MusixMatch and LyricFind and having their logo on each page. MusixMatch clearly states:

"Credit: Please give us due credit when using the musiXmatch API. Display a musiXmatch logo available on the logos page along with a link to http://www.musixmatch.com/resources when displaying lyrics provided by the API."

Also, a DMCA policy is also required. It looks MetroLyrics has no licensing service provider on any of their pages and it not compliant per the terms of either lyrics provider.

It is good practice for Wikipedia editors to research copyright and licensing compliance rather than taking the side of a large company like [CBS]. Reaching out to contact the website owner, NMPA and licensed lyrics companies are a good place to start as well before jumping to false conclusions.

I would like to motion to add MusicBlvd.com to this resource list Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos Trystanburke (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trystanburke: It seems that CactusWriter was suggesting above that additional due diligence was necessary before adding links. While you're waiting for a volunteer to do the due diligence you suggest, you might want to review Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. GoingBatty (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the note. It seems MusicBlvd has supplied sufficient evidence in their Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers. response. Do you still think it is necessary to go though the steps outlined here Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide? Trystanburke (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trystanburke: It seems that there are two different questions to be answered by someone more knowledgable than I am:

Is the response provided by MusicBlvd sufficient that people feel comfortable allowing links to MusicBlvd?
Is there anyone with a conflict of interest that chooses to not act in good faith with the guide above?

Again, there are people more experienced than I am in these matters, and I look forward to their responses. Happy holidays! GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was never that happy with the Metrolyrics linking - and my concerns were partially confirmed when many links were removed. I am even less convinced that MusicBoulevard are licenced. They claim they are licenced by Musixmatch, but Musixmatch doesn't hold the licences to grant to a third party. There would be obvious signs on the MusicBoulevard site to show they held the licences, not just a copy of an email partially blanked out - not the hardest thing to photoshop, either. If MusicBoulevard have the right to reproduce the lyrics with the permission of the copyright holders then they need to show it clearly. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: MusixMatch is indeed a licensed lyrics platform which tracks the impressions of each lyrics to it can compensate the author. They charge $1.40CPM for the lyrics displayed. Did you not read the details here at the MusixMatch Developer Portal? :@Richhoncho: Or this article clearly states how MusixMatch and LyricFind are providers of licensing NMPA's list of Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013?

The data is protected by copyright: Lyrics are copyrighted content and musiXmatch works directly with Music Publishers and Songwriters to ensure the right monetization of lyrics and the right exploitation of this content. You may not sell, lease, share, transfer, or sublicense the API or access to the API to any other party than the API key holder. You can cache our data to lighten bandwidth and improve latency, but don't crawl/spider our API and make a copy of our data to steal our mojo.

If you read further down in this response Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers., it also shows the MusixMatch API portal which shows activity for the entire month, as well as the MusixMatch logo on every page as instructed by MusixMatch Developer Portal

Are you an expert in this area? If this isn't sufficient evidence, then what is? Will you contact both nmadaj@nmpa.org and Gianluca@musixmatch.com? Trystanburke(talk) 03:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

:@GoingBatty: Thanks for the recommendation for mediation! We believe mediation is our next step unless @Richhoncho: or @CactusWriter: have anything else to say since we provided both documentation and contact information? Happy Holidays to all you guys. Trystanburke(talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Trystanburke, I'm sorry but as I see it, none of the problems have yet been resolved.

You were already informed by Moonriddengirl that letters scanned and posted online do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for reliability. In short: ...If MusiXmatch wants to publish something on their website clarifying the terms of any license [or that they] have extended their license to you, that may be helpful. Alternatively, they may be able to email info@wikimedia.org from an email address clearly associated with their domain clarifying the terms of their license. But please note that even if the copyright question is cleared up, that doesn't guarantee that MusicBlvd.com will be added to that section. That's an editorial matter... Any "official" communications with Wikipedia must be made through our WP:OTRS office.
The implication by musicblvd that it is the same company that sold music from 1995-1999 seems disingenuous. Purchasing a defunct domain name is not the same as "acquiring" the company. The original music-seller Music Boulevard was eventually absorbed into Amazon.
Your stated aim on Wikipedia "to advocate" and promote your website is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy. Please read our policy at Advocacy as well as the guideline at Advertising and Conflict of Interest.
The use of a meatpuppet to add links to Wikipedia is, to say the least, problematic. For example: your removal of an external link to a "competitor" website [2] and a few minutes later Sibtain 007 adding a link for musicblvd [3].

These issues give me great pause about permitting the addition of a (possibly unnecessary) link to your website on hundreds of Wikipedia pages. I appreciate that people have a website and they want to promote it but that is contrary to the function of an encyclopedia. I would like to hear the opinion of the project editors here before this can be resolved. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

:@CactusWriter: Thanks for your feedback. We have noted your comments and appreciate them.

I'd like to note that the same author who wrote NMPA's list of Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013 has now come forward on the University of Georgia website Verify MusicBlvd.com is Licensed.

To address your other points:

MusicBlvd will have MusixMatch email info@wikimedia.org to express that MusicBlvd.com has an enterprise license with said company.
Action Factory states MusicBlvd.com is the oldest music related domain. This statement is true. While it is a different company, musicblvd.com (the domain) still carries the history of it's predecessors.
MusicBlvd is speaking to editors to let them know MusicBlvd is compliant in licensing. It is an act to set the record straight and clear MusicBlvd.com's name.
Can you tell me who the project editors are? Why does MetroLyrics.com have the ability to be a resource, yet they have not had to prove they are compliant as well?

Again, thanks for patience.

Trystanburke(talk) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

People who have identified themselves as project editors are in Category:WikiProject Songs members. Note that this list will include people who are no longer active. GoingBatty (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:@CactusWriter: @Moonriddengirl: MusixMatch has sent correspondance to info@wikimedia.org stating MusicBlvd.com has a worldwide license. Please view the update here for proof -- Read Update 12/31/2013 Also, can you please check in with the receiver of info@wikemedia.org to validate? Trystanburke(talk) 22:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trystanburke: FYI, on the "Dear Wikipedia" page, the first Scribd image is displaying a "400 Bad Request" error. GoingBatty (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the heads up, it looks like all is fine now on this updated page - Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers. Trystanburke(talk) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with copyright law - although I have no pretence of being an expert. I am still not convinced this is a legal site - there are several reasons for this opinion, but I am happy to wait for somebody at WP with more experience than me to confirm the legality of the site. Until that point I am strongly opposed to the site becoming permitted site at WP. Most of what we are being shown seems manufactured, for instance, the purported email between 3 domains has a hyperlink for Googlemail at the bottom. Very strange. Although this may be the project that is most affected by the site, I am not sure there is enough legally-informed members to make a decision. Cheers. Happy New Year etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I think the decision should not be on the facts instead of email reprints, I wonder if someone is using Google Mail to read their Musicblvd.com email and having the hyperlink automatically created when the email is printed. GoingBatty (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

::@Richhoncho: @Everyone, Can someone just pick up the phone and call the National Music Publishers Association or email them at nmadaj@nmpa.org? It seems like some editors here are trying to find any excuse to question the legally of the site no matter what information is provided rather just calling or emailing themselves. Wikipedia is a non-profit that needs to support underdogs rather than favor big corporates. Trystanburke(talk) 03:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

::@Richhoncho: As for the Gmail, most people use Gmail or Google Apps these days and that is what it looks like when someone reprints from the cloud. Your decision needs to be based on whether you speak with someone at MusixMatch or NMPA rather than what email provider one uses. Cheers. Trystanburke(talk) 03:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that is probably the way you read your business emails. I wouldn't find any advantage doing it that way, so I didn't even consider it a possibility. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted NMPA, MusixMatch or the editor who receives info@wikimedia.org today? Trystanburke(talk) 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No I haven't phoned anybody. Sure I could phone and repeat what I was told, but that would only be hearsay and that is completely pointless. I assume somebody will/is dealing with your email at info@WP. If you read WP:LINKVIO you will understand our reticence in this matter. It's not a matter of supporting big or little guys. It's about being sure we are right. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The email is being dealt with at info@. Music Blvd. was contacted on 12/31 with an inquiry about the letter and has not responded. It's been sent again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: @Trystanburke: Hi guys! A representative from Music Blvd has reached out to us about verifying that they are licensed to display music lyrics on their website. Unfortunately, as I explained to them, the Foundation is not in a position to do this type of fact checking. First, limited resources prevent us from such investigations except in circumstances where we are required to investigate by law -- for instance, when someone files a DMCA claim asking that copyrighted content be taken down. Moreover, even if we had the resources, ethical obligation forbid the legal team from providing legal advice to editors and community members, so we cannot advise you whether Music Blvd has a legal right to display the lyrics. Personally, I'm encouraged by the good faith seemingly displayed by all sides in this discussion -- hopefully a reasoned decision can be reached even without our direct involvement :) --AVoinigescu (WMF) (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Thanks for the follow up. I've contacted MusicBlvd and they indicated they haven't received any correspondence from Wikipedia. What email address is info@wikimedia.org emailing? Trystanburke(talk) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I just spotted a pair of e-mails from MusicBlvd in OTRS (looks like they removed the ticket number) - I've made Moonriddengirl the owner. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: What's the latest? It seems like you have access to the emails now? Trystanburke(talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've looked at the tickets. The primary tickets 2013123110007003 (only viewable for OTRS agents, I'm afraid). Gianluca delli Carri, Musixmatch co-founder, writes to confirm that Music Blvd has sublicensed content they have themselves licensed from publishers. He indicates there are several thousand publishers involved, but that there is no list of these specific publishers on his website. The email has been positively identified with the Musixmatch domain. The community can use this information to determine whether the link is editorially appropriate, of course. It does not create an obligation to include or allow the link, but it may be helpful in reaching that determination. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Thank you Moonriddengirl for confirming MusicBlvd is a licensed lyrics publisher. We will let the editors and community decide whether to include the content as a reference link or not. Trystanburke(talk) 23:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Promotional singles

Hello, I need help regarding promotional singles. My questions are about "Controversy" and "Outta Time", which are album tracks from Trouble by Natalia Kills — a music video for "Controversy" was released in 2012 as a preview from the album, though a download wasn't available on iTunes. Buzz single is a bit casual for Wikipedia, I think, but I don't think it's exactly the same as a promotional recording. Should I consider it to be a promotional single, or not?

Second question: "Outta Time", before being released on iTunes as a free single, was released via newsletter with free download. In the article's infobox, should I put the iTunes date or the newsletter date of release? Thank you in advance, and please ping me when you respond. prism △ 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote for mistaken title?

I was wondering if we should provide navigation where song lyrics could easily be mistaken for the song title, and where to draw the line? For example, I was looking for the Nickelback song "Going Out Tonight", but it was only when I searched with Google that I found out that the song is actually called "Burn It to the Ground". That might just be my own ignorance, however, so it may not be a common misconception. Does "Going Out Tonight" deserve a hatnote to disambiguate, or would that be a slippery slope? What would be good and bad examples of disambiguation based on lyrics? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono

Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for renaming, see Talk:Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nan-nichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

National anthems: Quotation marks, italics, or nothing?

In the text of articles, should national anthems be in quotation marks, italicized, or plain text? Please discuss at WT:Manual of Style/Music if you care. — AjaxSmack 19:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Genre in infobox discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Genre in the infobox. _{(copied from notices at other projects).} --Richhoncho (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment required

Can this article - Horn OK Please (song) be assessed for quality? Thanks. Soham 15:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring NSONGS

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Ignoring_NSONGwhich we should pay attention to. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

LOOK AT US SONG

This song was Written by Carl Belew just before he died in 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.227.154 (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the proper article's talk page, such as Talk:Look at Us (song) or Talk:Carl Belew. Please also provide a reliable source. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Article needed for the song "El Coqui"

Where exactly do I make the proposal that someone on this Wiki Project start an article on the song "El Coqui"? I think the song is notable enough to warrant an article, and I was quite surprised to see that we did not have one yet. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting of songs from Oklahoma!

I just discovered that many of the song articles from the musical Oklahoma! have their titles improperly formatted in the lead sections. Can someone help fix this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Song That Doesn't End

I am not sure if this is the place to ask for this. I am requesting a name change, and I've posted about it in the article's talk page: The Song That NEVER End(s)

Since roughly 2006, the page has listed information about the song that is inaccurate. Sadly, I had never stumbled upon it before. I've spoken with at least one Shari Lewis fan who is NOT pleased about this. The article can be found here and it is clearly not named properly: The Song That Never Ends. It should be The Song That Doesn't End

Thanks for your help! --Molokaicreeper (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Single or not?

I'm returning to my favourite Wikipedia game called "Single or not?". Is "Same Girl" (Jennifer Lopez song) as 'regular' single or a promotional/buzz single? The song can be bought as a separate item on iTunes and Amazon, so from my Wikipedia experience there shouldn't be any doubt that it was in fact released as a single. However, my edit to the article was reverted by Tomica, as reportedly several sources state it's a buzz single. Mayast (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I would say it's a single, but from the beginning, Lopez, and the media, have been reported it to be simply a buzz single. The same thing goes for "I Luh Ya Papi" and "Girls". There is no confirmation any of these songs are official singles, and their releases are quite confusing. One of the main issues we have with a single being changed to a promo single is that the song is unsuccessful, so the record labels say it wasn't an official single. This isn't the case here, as there hasn't been word on what any of this is yet. This is a mess exclusive to Lopez, and I think this is an inappropriate area for discussion. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, I think that it's a single unless otherwise stated. With the exception being backtracking. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your imput. I didn't know about this Lopez-related mess, as that's the very first article regarding her work I have edited. You might be right that this isn't the best place to ask, but I chose it because whenever I start to feel that I finally understand the difference between singles and other releases, something like this happens to me :D (and I go back to "I know that I know nothing"). — Mayast (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the confusion. It's really a mess right now with regards to if she's going to be releasing a real single or not. "I Luh Ya Papi" has been claimed to be the first single from her upcoming album, but again, this hasn't been officially confirmed either. I quite frankly don't know what they are doing. You are absolutely correct in that if it's available to buy commercially, it's a single. But then there are also exceptions that just make everything more confusing. I originally had them listed as singles, but changed them recently due to new articles calling both "Girls" and "Same Girl" promo singles, in light of "I Luh Ya Papi"'s premiere. Would a good compromise be calling them neither singles or promo singles, and just songs for the time being? Until we get more information about what exactly any of these songs are? — Status (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is from an article by MTV: Following the release of teaser tracks Girls and Same Girl, I Luh Ya Papi has been confirmed as the first official single to be taken Lopez's eighth studio LP, which is due for release later this year. This is from an article by The Guardian: Earlier this year she released the drum clap-heavy DJ Mustard-produced buzz track Girls, which was then followed by the Jenny From The Block-isms of R&B throwback Same Girl. Again, not a proper single. This then brings us to the ridiculously-titled I Luh Ya PaPi, which despite also not being a single, edges nearer to that status. I hope these two snippets show you of the confusion happening right now and explain it without going into too much detail. That's why I think it might just be best for them just to be labelled as songs for the time being. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. IMO, these songs are still singles, but if they can't be labelled as such, I would leave them as promos for the time being.

I'm going to change the direction of my post here a little bit. I think we were discussing something related in the past, and I mentioned that some kind of a guide to decide whether a song is a single or not would be helpful. WP:SINGLE? is definitely not there yet.
Usually the problem I'm having is the other way around: a song receives a lot of airplay, has a music video released to VEVO, and is hailed a single by the media, but isn't sold separately on iTunes, so some editors don't see it as a single. I see more and more high-profile radio singles only being sold as part of the album. For example Coldplay's "Magic" isn't sold on iTunes or Amazon as a separate item, so, according to WP:SINGLE?, if it was only released to European radio stations, we wouldn't be able to call it a single. (Luckily, we have the Australian Google Play store, a French retailer and U.S. radio... Hooray...)
BTW, if we look at "Same Girl" and WP:SINGLE?, the song meets the 'digital release' condition for a single, but the 'publications' condition is in a contradiction to it. That's confusing, too.
Summing up, I really think we [the WikiProject Songs] should work on a guideline or policy for singles/radio singles/promo singles etc. — Mayast (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. I believe we tried to before, but it didn't work out that well and it was years ago (possibly three?). — Status (talk · contribs) 21:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, we need to merge {{Infobox song}} and {{infobox single}}, which are used interchangeably. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that could be a step in a good direction. We don't have different infoboxes for studio albums, EPs, etc. Similarly, one infobox for songs would allow to keep it simple, and specific types of release (like "radio single", "promotional single", and so on) could be signaled in the "type" field. But we would need some clearer definitions of those types of releases. Right now, "radio single" redirects to promotional recording, but to me they aren't an exactly the same thing. — Mayast (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wade in the Water

Wade in the Water needs some work. If anyone can help me, I would appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I can find almost nothing about this important song to use as a reference. I know there are sources out there. Can anyone who is familiar with the subject of Negro spirituals point me to the definitive sources? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

HI ,I need the chords progressions ( FOR KEYS ) for this song,,(come on down to my boat baby) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP...GINO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.126.112 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nudity in music videos

There is a discussion on Talk:Nudity in music videos which has been tagged as a page monitored by this WikiProject. Members of this project are welcome to contribute, thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite AV media notes (aka cite album notes) to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And now considering {{cite music release notes}}. The discussion is here: Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Release histories

I've noticed some GA-class song articles have release histories and some don't. Some have a section written in paragraphs about the release and some don't. Are they essential? What is the preferred use? If you must include a release history table, what are the minimums and maximums? —Coolmarc (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't written any GA-class articles yet, but I generally add release history table if a song has multiple release dates in different countries or is released in different formats, etc. When there is just one worldwide release date (in other words, one position in the table), that section is pointless.
As for the "release" section, I usually add it if there is some information about the release written in prose, preferably more than just mentioning the release dates – that's why I sometimes decide to combine "release" information with other topics, for example the song's background, like with Invisible (U2 song). — Mayast (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

More info from the media about this song

I am trying to find some more information about this song from the media. I haven't been able to find a whole lot of information or coverage in the media about this song.I am looking for newspaper or magazine articles, news reports, website, live performances. Tsmith14Tsmith14 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the name of the song you're looking for info about? ~ Boomur [☎] 22:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am looking for anything on the song "No more tears" by Tupac Tsmith14 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Tsmith14

I can't find any info about a song with that name by Tupac. Is it possible that you're thinking of "So Many Tears" or "No More Pain" from the album All Eyez on Me? ~ Boomur [☎] 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes sorry " So many Tears" is the song. TsmithTsmith14 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at MoS concerning peacock language

Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think you know how to love me" defvdx

The song "If you think you know how to love me" was also released on the first Pat Benatar's album "In the heat of the night"; released in 1979 (august)).. This first album of the American 80's icone, was full of covers, as the John Cougar Mellencamp's song " I need a lover" released for the first time in the same year (1979) by the both artists. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.47.206.151 (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

3 failed attempts at song FA nomination

I am looking for some feedback on the Slug (song) page, has been nominated for FA three times (and failed). The most recent nomation, from May 2013, was only opposed by one user, which was apparently enough to keep it from getting promoted. In each nomation, users have made a big deal about the article's short length and try to make a point about how it probably wouldn't even survive an AFD, despite having been at GA status since 2010. I understand that the article is shorter than others, but the topic has been extensively covered as much as possible, meets all FA requirements, and I don't see why it doesn't deserve to be promoted.

I would love to see it get promoted, but nominating it again would be like beating a dead horse at this point. I would appreciate any input about the article you could give. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dream out loud Have you had it peer reviewed? I had the same issues with When Love Takes Over. It appears that there are differing standards over what is and isn't acceptable. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Lil-unique1 I have not, but it sounds like a good idea. I just submitted a request for a PR so hopefully that helps. Thanks for the suggestion. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Iris (Goo Goo Dolls song)

So the article for Iris (Goo Goo Dolls song) says it spent eighteen weeks at the top of the Hot 100 Airplay, but no source is given. Is there anywhere this can be independently verified? I.e., is there a historical chart website for Hot 100 Airplay, the way there is for the Billboard Hot 100? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This source confirms that "Iris" spent 18 weeks at number one on the Hot 100 Airplay chart and that it was the record as of at least September 2005. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

KTHX, I didn't know Billboard was available on Google Books. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

EARNINGS OF A PARTICULAR SONG, AS A MARKET MEASURE

Why don't these one song pages include an "Earnings to Date" subsection?

The accumulated earnings, both U.S. and worldwide, ought to be reported, separately, for each song. Also, perhaps, how much the artist got, of that total, vs. how much the publisher or record company got, so far.

Also, the CURRENT ownership of the copyright should be displayed, with a direct link if any exists, so that those readers who want to buy or use this song have an easy reference. (There could even be a sub-category of "IS THIS SONG FOR SALE" in the original Wikipedia listing for a song.)

Starhistory22 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Starhistory22 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

as far as copyright information goes, i don't think we need to do that. wikipedia isn't a copyright directory (aside from copyright info we provide for files we use), and most of that info is available elsewhere. i'm not sure about listing artist earnings, but i don't see how we would get that data in the first place. we do, generally, give album sales where available; i don't think more specific contractual details are released. ~ Boomur [☎] 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should be linking directly to a place to buy a song (or album, book, video game, etc). If a song is available on both iTunes and Amazon, which do we choose? Why? It could look like Wikipedia is pushing readers to a specific store to buy songs there, and I'm not sure that complies with WP:EL. Do any other editors know what WP policy is on linking to locations to purchase media? (I looked, but couldn't find anything specific.) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pantomime" by Incubus

Was the original studio version of the Incubus song "Pantomime" on the Alive at Red Rocks EP recorded for A Crow Left of the Murder but left off the album? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ooh Ooh Baby" disambguation and redirect pages

There is a Taral Hicks song called "Ooh, Ooh Baby," but there is also a Britney Spears song called "Ooh Ooh Baby." There needs to be a redirect page for both songs. Can anyone please make a disambiguation page and a redirect page for each song? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

i've modified the hatnote on "Ooh, Ooh Baby" to direct readers to the Britney Spears album containing "Ooh Ooh Baby", as the song itself has no article. ~ Boomur [☎] 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Data granularity redux

I've proposed some changes to {{Infobox single}}; please comment at Template talk:Infobox single#Data granularity redux. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)