Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Certification Table Entry

How I can add dedicated reference to Certification Table Entry template? Eurohunter (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You can add a parameter "refname" – is that what you are looking for? Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No. I want to add ref there. Eurohunter (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
But that's what I mean – using the parameter "|refname=..." allows you to include a reference. Richard3120 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit: for example, see Hounds of Love#Certifications where two references have been added using the "salesref" parameter. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Whait if I need salref and certyficationref? Eurohunter (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You can use both "certref" and "salesref" as two separate parameters... although if you need to use "certref" because a country isn't covered by one of the standard entries on the template, it might be questioned as to how obscure the country is. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Why no automatic sales number here? Eurohunter (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Because you haven't added the "certyear" parameter in order to make the template work properly. Richard3120 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is 2006 for Sweden. Eurohunter (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Er, no, actually it was still missing. Anyway, I've fixed the missing parameters for you. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Why it not work here? I just copied and replaced. Looks like links for autogenerator are incorrect too. Eurohunter (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Allen origins

I'm engaged in a discussion at Talk:Barbara_Allen_(song)#Origins. Others may wish to comment. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Are these songs/albums notable? Why do the articles continue to exist?

I have created and begun cleaning up Category:Articles using Billboard ID with invalid artist, and in the process, I have come across a number of articles for songs and albums that do not appear to meet basic notability criteria. I don't spend much time in the AfD world, so I don't know if there is some reason these articles have been allowed to exist. Can someone here enlighten me?

Examples: I Can't Fix You and all of the other songs by Sasha Pieterse listed in the template at the bottom of that article have no coverage in third-party sources referenced in the articles. The same situation holds for Pony Down (Prelude), 1 Less G n da Hood, Colton Grundy: The Undying, and other articles about music by Blaze Ya Dead Homie. Also Drive-By (group), which has no references.

What am I missing? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You can find notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS. Charting on a national chart and/or receiving multiple professional reviews are good indicators, although when there is little content in the article sometimes it is better to redirect it to the artist's page, anyway. – Mayast (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style concerning the removal of the capitalized "like" in "Smells Like Teen Spirit", Fly Like an Eagle, &c. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"Tennessee Whiskey"

The usage and topic of Tennessee Whiskey is under discussion, see talk:Tennessee Whiskey (song) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we establish a consensus for the definition of singles?

About two years back, I tried to establish a consensus for a coherent definition of what constitutes a single proper as opposed to a promotional or buzz single. The only definite consensus that was reached is that the music industry now has no coherent definition for a single. So, what implications does this have on Wikipedia? Are singles obsolete, and should no longer be listed on new releases? Do we list all music videos and streaming tracks as singles? Do we list all charted tracks as singles? And are we talking about promotional and buzz singles, or singles proper? In the same way that on Wikipedia we enforce a particular meaning of rock and roll since the word has multiple meanings, I think that we need to find a coherent definition for singles and stick with it. Below I am listing several options for editors to vote on:

  1. The classic definition: A physical commercial release with two sides, typically featuring two tracks, or else a CD format single, that is released separate from an album. I will note that this definition is probably already obsolete, as in 2005 the UK Singles Chart broadened their definition of singles to include digital downloads. However, two years later they abandoned any strict definition and now include any downloaded song on the chart.
  2. Any physical or digital commercial release separate from an album. Non-commercial versions don't count, even if the album is free. (This definition would expand singles to include digital formats, and non-commercial singles would be promo singles.)
  3. Any physical or digital release separate from an album, including free releases only if the album/EP/mixtape is free. (This definition would expand singles to include digital formats, and most non-commercial singles would be promo singles. However, this also allows for non-commercial albums to have singles be listed.)
  4. Any physical or digital release separate from an album, commercial or free. (This would greatly increase what is considered a single, and greatly reduce what is considered a promo single.
  5. Any physical or digital release separate from an album, commercial or free, as well as track that is released individually for streaming. (This would basically eliminate the distinction between singles and promo singles).
  6. Any release tracked on a singles chart. (This functionally would be nigh identical to option 5).
  7. Any physical or digital release separate from an album, commercial or free, as well as track that is released individually for streaming, as well as music videos if a reliable source calls the video a single. (Note that this is not saying that all videos would be singles, but often reliable sources will call a video a single, and this option would allow for the accompanying song to be considered a single).
  8. Eliminate a workable definition. Abandon usage of the singles template and singles sections of discographies for all music after mid-late 2000s, when many charts opened up their listings to any downloaded song.
  9. Create a separate category for physical singles, then decide whether the singles template and discography sections should be restricted to physical signals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  10. Also, an official (sent to Radio by the Record label) 'Radio date'=Single creation per consensus at WT:SONG but it is not called 'Release'. It's really 'sent to radio', 'impacting radio', etc but NOT 'released' to Radio because the industry does NOT call it that. If there is a later physical or digital download independent of the parent album, then that date is shown as the date of "Release". Example (except the Radio date is later): Diamonds (Rihanna song)#Radio and release history. Note the ref here, "impacting songs".—Iknow23 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Support 3: I lean toward option 3, though I also see very strong merits for 4. I strongly oppose options 1, 7, and 8. I also think that if option 5 or 6 is decided on, we abandon any continued use of the term promo singles for discography lists.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - In the last discussion on it, multiple editors were in favor of the go by whatever reliable third party sources sources deem a song to be, so I find it strange that this is not an option, unless I'm misreading one of the options above. I tend to feel the same I did 2 years ago - if the music industry can't seem to decide on a uniform definition, who are we to decide? I just go by WP:V. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That basically would mean following option 7. Also, why would some music videos qualify as singles, and others not, just because the term single is used by reliable sources as a throwaway term? Should we take the last option and just make single equate song, since the definition is now essentially meaningless? Why bother having the template and discography sections? I ask these not to be contrary, but as legitimate questions, and that is why I suggested abandoning the distinction between singles and songs as an option.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added an option 9 as another alternative - it would allow for the traditional definition of singles to hold, and that definition be used for listing in discographies and such as a distinct category.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. True singles as far as the original meaning is concerned are vinyl records with generally one track on each side. CD singles and cassette singles were basically the same releases on different physical formats so it makes sense to class them as singles. If someone makes a track available for download on their website, that's not a single. If someone puts a Youtube video up, that's not a single. The problem is the same term is used by sources to mean different things (the UK Singles Chart clearly is not limited to singles these days, it's really a tracks chart - they should have changed the name), and while some sources might refer to free download tracks as singles that doesn't make them singles as far as the original meaning is concerned, just as reliable sources referring to an artist as R&B doesn't make them part of the same genre as the original music that was called R&B. (1) above clearly describes singles but is too restrictive, (2) is reasonable but for digital-only releases I would prefer that we use a different terminology or at least list them separately in discographies, (3) includes a lot of things that are not singles, as do (4), (5), (6), and (7). (8) doesn't make sense since physical singles are still released to this day, and physical singles are still undeniably singles. --Michig (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Michig: How is option 1 too narrow? I thought that description is exactly what you have advocated for in the previous discussion, and have described immediately above? I'll tweak that description if you can explain.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty much ok but excludes CD singles, which don't have 2 sides (at least not with music on each side). --Michig (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 7 - as it seems to be the only one that goes strictly by WP:V, which is what I believe we need to stick to. If the industry doesn't/can't/won't clearly define it, who are we to define it? We are not the ones to make decisions like this, we are the ones who document it based on what third party sources verify. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In answer to the question of definition, should we on Wikipedia abandon the current distinction between rock and roll and rock music? I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't, but to illustrate the point that we've arbitrarily chosen one sourced definition over another, also sourced definition, for purposes of clarity. I think for all the above options we could find reliable sources supporting. I'm not contending against your vote, which I see the merits for, but explaining why I don't think the other options fall under OR. There's a certain point where the general idea of WP:DUCK can be applied to subjects - if a composition has no lyrics, I don't think it's WP:OR to call it an instrumental, even if no sources explicitly state that it is. Likewise, if a song was released on CD for purchase in advance of an album, and the release was documented in sources but not described as a single, I think it is acceptable to still call it a single. Option 7 would still allow that, but also allow for formats not traditionally described as singles, such as music videos, to be defined as such if reliable sources call them that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with option 7 and many of the others is that they include things that have never been described as singles. Many artists have released individual tracks via their websites or put videos up online without ever describing them as singles. --Michig (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I personally agree. The other issue with option 7 whether we still consider promotional singles a separate category. If we do go with that option, should we merge the two?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish I had answers for you, but within the confines of Wikipedia policy, I don't believe its possible for me to provide answers for these questions. WikiProject Video Games had a similar problem with how the industry handles the generations of video game consoles. Sources endlessly make comments on the generations, but few, if any, actually define them or the criteria that would decide where one would be grouped. As such, in determining inclusion, they've basically had to adapt a "if sources deem it part of a generation, include it, if they don't, don't include it". I understand your thoughts on applying WP:DUCK in theory, but not to this particular situation. You can't apply DUCK to something that is contentious, and if the definition of singles weren't contentious, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I also don't believe even a consensus here will help us - it'll be nice to have something for experienced editors to point to, sure but instead of arguing over whether or not a song is a single, it'll just shift to "this hypothetical guideline vs what this source says". Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note I've added option 10.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 3 & 10—Iknow23 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that option is that songs sent to radio = singles? Some of the wording was a little confusing for me is all.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I've clarified the wording above and added an example.-Iknow23 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 10 basically is the definition of promotional singles - a song released to radio but not for commercial purchase.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Please remember that the industry refuses to call it "released to radio". With the advent of Digital downloads, Record labels can now often choose to be "lazy" and not set up separate purchase options for "singles". Like iTunes countdown to release (of an album)...Not sent to radio=no single release. The song was released digitally as an album track prior to the full album release as an instant grat track. (Notice it’s called instant grat track, not instant grat single.) Thus it's not a single even when you pay for it. And then after the album is released, there is no incentive to set up separate purchase options for "singles" anymore. They can just send it to radio and anyone can purchase it digitally from the album. They are probably glad that you are looking at the entire album purchase presentation as some buyers will undoubtedly go ahead and purchase the entire album (or failing that, will purchase additional tracks from the album instead of just the one.)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, sent to radio. Regardless of the exact terminology, this type of song would under the definition of a promotional single (in my view, though part of this discussion is to whether or not the industry maintains that distinction).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I originally thought that but the prior discussion decided otherwise. I had to compromise and accept it. I guess part of the thinking is that when the record label is OFFICIALLY presenting an individual song on the radio = single as physical singles aren't done much anymore. A moderization of "single" due to technological advance. As to the "Countdown to release" tracks, some claim they are "singles" without any additional promotion by the record label. Then others claim they are "promotional singles". Without any promotion by the record label, I maintain that they are merely album tracks being sold early. The prior discussion decided that a music video or not for a song has no bearing on it qualifying as a "single".—Iknow23 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 3 seems like the best to distinguish promo from official while maintaining the fact that singles can be released both digitally AND physically. However, I should also note that having a video DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY make a song a single or even promotional single, and a source giving a specific song release date (whether radio or download) would be needed as opposed to a video release date. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support #8 – Differentiating singles from songs is not useful. Except for discographies, I haven't seen any other encyclopedias that follow this practice. A section can be added to song articles that discusses "Single release" or such. The two infoboxes are nearly the same and "Single release [Date] and [Format]" could be added to the song template, if necessary. However, I would apply this to all songs/singles, not just post-2000s. Prior to the popularization of albums in the 1950s, most all songs were released as singles, so there is no practical distinction for this period either. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand that argument. Many songs have never been released on singles, and we have over 50 years of history where most recorded songs were not released on singles. The song infobox is already problematic because it's already skewed towards singles rather than songs (a song doesn't have tracks, a record label, a fixed length, or a cover). --Michig (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree - especially if we're applying such a consensus retroactively on older releases, when the industry was far clearer in its definition of singles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support options 5 and 10. But what will be classified as a promotional single then? According to the article Promotional recording, a "promotional single" is "a single that is made available to radio stations, nightclubs, music publications, and other media outlets by a record label for the express purpose of promoting a forthcoming commercial single or an entirely new album". Are the buzz singles a form of digital promo singles or something like that?.--Paparazzzi (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support option 2. Songs that chart automatically gain WP:GNG status in my experience. Any other option (besides the first) will simply open the floor gates and we will see a large number of stubs of promotional singles that really should be included on album pages. Record companies rarely roll out a singles campaign these days, like they did in the 1990s. Karst (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Songs about aircraft

Category:Songs about aircraft has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

The RM discussion is still ongoing. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits

A discussion has been started at the WP:External links noticeboard regarding miscrediting songwriters often found in external links to song lyrics on MetroLyrics. Please add your comments at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

You are invited to comment on a request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: should the artist name be included in the titles of articles about songs and albums when other songs or albums of the same name exist, but do not have standalone articles? Thanks. sst✈ 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A question on your policies

Why do you never include lyrics on articles within your wheelhouse? Copyright fears? Verifiablity? Fear of original research? Simply too much indiscriminate information? Is there a specific reason? Please use {{Ping}} or {{Talkback}} when you respond.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Miscredited additional songwriters on ASCAP, BMI and other music publishing database

Additional songwriters have been miscredited on any music publishing database like:

Anyway, we'll better use to based on album booklet/liner notes just like Love Me like You Do#Credits and personnel. 115.164.222.107 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. The listing at BMI/ASCAP are correct - it's where the payments go, whereas the CD cover is what the record company wants to put there (primary source, ring any bells?). What you can do, if there is a discrepancy, point out it out, without adding opinion or original research and let the reader decide. Anyway, how would you (or I) know who wrote a specific song unless we were in the room at the time? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
On investigation, you will find that both these songs contain enough of a sample to garner songwriting credits for the original writers. So what is missing from the articles are notes of which songs have been sampled. Please find out which songs have been sampled and add the information (with reliable sources) to the articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
David K. Kim is a producer and owner of 3P Music Productions in New York, a studio where part of the song was written. Karst (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Doing a Google search for the three extra writers brings up this page. There's a clear similarity between the two, as noted by listeners on Youtube. Looks like this song was released first. Although yes, that's original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.203.134.218 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: My Old Kentucky Home rendition lists

Please check out the new RfC that seeks to decide what to do with three rendition lists in the article. This is to help resolve an ongoing dispute. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning songwriters on dab pages

Hi. I've been told by an other editor that it is wrong to include both artist and songwriter in songs on dab pages. Given that any song that is really notable is likely to have been recorded by more than one artist I believe that including the songwriter prevents duplicate entries on dab pages. Is there any written rule anywhere that songwriters must not be mentioned? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What I said was, don't include extraneous information that's not necessary for disambiguation. I directed you to WP:DABENTRY, which says: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." In most cases, the artist is sufficient to help readers identify the topic. Conceivably in some cases the songwriter will be more identifiable, but it's unlikely that the full credits will ever be needed.
Clarity is especially important when you add dab entries for things that don't even have articles, for instance songs that have no article but are mentioned at an artist or album article. For instance, ""Some Hearts", a 2015 single by David James" is sufficient, we don't need to add "Composed by Ben Caver / Don Poythress / Tony Wood" (and that's besides the formatting).--Cúchullain t/c 20:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I see you've been deleting more songwriters from dabs.
I explained why in many cases it's not "just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link" to just one artist, why it's important to include songwriters, because the same songs are often recorded by multiple artists, and you still went and deleted the songwriters, thereby making it impossible to identify songs recorded as covers. You haven't answered my inquiry above you've just repeated again your opinion that readers should know who the original artist was of any song recorded once. Why should they know? And is it their fault if they don't? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Without examples it is difficult to comment. As a general rule pre-1963 the songwriter is more important than the artist and post-1964 it's the artist. So it's a case by case decision. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
In ictu, yes, as I told you before I'll continue to reduce verbiage on dab pages where I see it, per MOS:DABENTRY. For instance, ""Cheap Thrills", a 1983 song by David Allan Coe" is perfectly sufficient to point readers to the correct section of the David Allan Coe discography article. They don't need "song and single by David Allan Coe, written by B. McDill 1983 David Allan Coe discography US#45", whatever that means.[1] Similarly, "A 1983 song by Planet Patrol" is also plenty, readers aren't helped by the addition "written by Arthur Baker & John Robie 1983, UK#64", especially considering that Baker and Robie were the members of the band. Again, in some cases different disambiguation may be better to get people where they want to go, but I doubt there's any case where readers' disambiguation needs will require the artist and the full production credits and the British chart position of a song.--Cúchullain t/c 01:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
removing songwriters again Please note above that there isn't a rush of agreement for your view that songwriters must be removed. I personally would think that where a song has been covered, therefore the artist name alone by definition cannot be the only identifier. Is that not the case? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
But fine, whatever. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The "rush of agreement" is covered in MOS:DAB itself. Please see the "Switch" example of WP:DABPIPING:

Switch may refer to:

  • "Switch", a song by Siouxsie & the Banshees from The Scream
    Markup: "Switch", a song by Siouxsie & the Banshees from ''[[The Scream (album)|The Scream]]''

Obviously, that's just an example, the songwriter or whatever could be substituted depending on the case, though it needs to be simple. And yes, if the song has been covered, possibly other information should be included. But if the only information on a particular song is on one artist's album article, linking there is likely enough and you can get into the recording history in the article itself.--Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see this song has never been covered. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow.--Cúchullain t/c 15:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see what a song being covered or not covered has to do with this. DAB entries should be short, and generally that means only the artist need be listed. I could see cases where the songwriter being more notable, in which cases the songwriter would be listed instead (hymns and classical compositions I think would normally be listed this way).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Third-party help requested at Pop Style

I am having some trouble at Pop Style and do not want to end up in an edit war. Can an uninvolved editor please take a look at the article, the edit history, the article's talk page, and WP:NSONGS and provide a third-party opinion here? Other relevant discussion is at User talk:SmithN41V#Please read WP:NSONGS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is even a dispute. A simple Google shows sources from Billboard, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, etc. all perfectly valid sources (and therefore implies that the song is notable) Instead of arguing, wouldn't it be simpler to just add the sources yourself? Hzh (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the fact the song has been released as a stand-alone single and has a chart history in more than one country, which is all properly sourced, means it probably does pass WP:NSONGS – sure, it would be nice to see more information about it, but looking at the articles for Drake's previous three singles, they have about the same amount of information as well, so it's difficult to make a case to single out "Pop Songs" as the only single to be redirected, in my opinion. I share some of your concerns about editors jumping in and creating articles with only the most basic information, but I think I would side with Hzh and concentrate on improving the article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The Pitchfork source that I found is a two-sentence mention that the song exists. An NME source is a blog. The Verge also has about two sentences. The Billboard sources are trivial mentions of a position on a trivial chart and what amounts to a two-sentence press release. The Rolling Stone source is equally substance-free. There's no real coverage there.
Our most basic notability guideline says that a topic needs "significant coverage in reliable sources"; "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail". At the end of that guideline, this relevant statement appears: "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." That is exactly what we have for Pop Style: "some verifiable facts". This article should clearly be a redirect until "significant coverage in reliable sources" is available.
That said, it seems like this WikiProject does not care to enforce Wikipedia's basic notability guidelines. I think I just need to stay away from these song articles. As I wrote two months ago on this page, with no substantive response, I don't see how these articles survive given the clear language in WP:NSONGS and at WP:GNG.
What am I missing here? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, it has charted on all the primary singles charts of the US, UK and Australia, so it passes that point of WP:NSONGS. The problem as I said is that you can find many, many articles for songs on Wikipedia which pass this criterion for charting, but not the others: they contain little text or information, including the articles for previous singles by Drake. So by the same logic all these other articles should be put up for deletion as well, which will be time-consuming. I think that's why the WikiProject doesn't enforce the guidelines, there's just too many articles of this type to deal with. Richard3120 (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Charting is brought up repeatedly in these discussions, but I see this in NSONGS: "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." Item number 1 that follows mentions charting, but since that is solely an indication that the song may be notable, that item is not a notability criterion and should not be used to determine whether an article should be allowed on Wikipedia.
Re "too many articles of this type to deal with": that may be worth testing. Efforts like that are one of the reasons we form WikiProjects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that appearing in one or more national charts shouldn't be the only criterion for an article to be created, but unfortunately it seems that in recent years many new editors have felt that almost every single that has charted in the last ten to fifteen years passes notability and have created articles accordingly, many of which suffer from exactly the same issues as this one, consisting of chart positions and little else – that's an awful lot of articles (hundreds, if not thousands) to put up for deletion, and the truth is that most WikiProjects are pretty much dead these days, so you may end up finding it becomes a time-consuming one-man crusade. I do agree that there are many song and album articles which just aren't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article – if you do want to embark on a clearout you may want to start with articles like this one that I came across today, which should be much easier to argue that they should be deleted or redirected to the parent album, as they don't appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSONGS. Richard3120 (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: just to confirm what I said about the sheer number of song articles that consist of chart placings and little else, here is the list of more than 43,000 song articles rated stub-class on Wikipedia – this includes some US and UK number one singles! Without question a lot of these should go. Richard3120 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
But I don't believe you should have put the article up for PROD, which is for uncontested deletions: the fact that objections have been raised here and that SmithN41V has reverted in the past shows that the deletion is contentious... it should have been raised at AfD instead. Richard3120 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as this article goes, just by looking at the available sources, it is notable. Here is UK Official Charts Company, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Yahoo Music!, MTV. They all think the song important enough to mention the song by name in the article title. It is therefore the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. Information on a song may sometimes not be readily available when it is first released, and some reports on it would therefore limited to a few lines. But the fact is that these organizations think the song is important enough to warrant putting the song in their articles' title. I really can't see what the problem is. New song articles are often fragmentary, and all you need to do is wait for a few weeks depending on the the willingness of editors to flesh out the article. Often editors don't bother to flesh out the article, giving the impression that the article have no significant coverage, when all it needs is just someone making the effort to bring it up to standard. In this case there are already enough sources to consider it notable, so to expend time and energy to discuss its notability is a futile exercise. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:As Long as You Love Me

I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:SONG#LYRICS

Following the discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits, an addition to WP:SONG#LYRICS is proposed. The proposed addition is in bold:

Per Wikipedia policy, please do not link to websites that are in violation of the artist's own copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Even when using licensed websites, care must be taken to only link songs which are properly licensed, such as those identified by MetroLyrics with the LyricFind "LF" logo. If there is a question regarding the licensing or accuracy of the information, including songwriter credits, please do not add a link. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

Any comments? If there are no objections, I'll add this to the project page. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Added to WP:SONG#LYRICS.—Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Fame (Irene Cara song), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

"International Lover"

I just started the article for "International Lover", the song that earned Prince his first Grammy nomination. Oddly, I can not find any reviews that discuss it substantively. It has gone on to be considered one of his more important songs by many even though it was never released as a single. Does anyone know how I can find more information about this song. I would appreciate any help that people might be able to lend to at least bring this article up to the WP:DYK standard of 1500 characters of encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You say "it has gone on to be considered one of his more important songs by many", but there's nothing really in the references cited in the article that substantiates that claim – I think that's the reason you can't find anything that provides background on the song. Short of researching Prince biographies, Thomas O'Neil's out-of-print The Grammys book, or delving into back issues of magazines like Rolling Stone, Creem or Trouser Press for interviews with Prince from 1982, I'm not sure where else you might be able to find any information that discusses the track. Richard3120 (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The article currently has sources supporting "It is considered to be one of the songs that vaulted him to stardom and a good example of his vocal range from bass to falsetto." It also earned him his first Grammy nomination. That is why I say "one of his more important songs". Richard3120, however, I could use help sourcing facts like the following:
  1. He wrote all of 1999, which would mean he wrote this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. He produced all of 1999, which would mean he produced this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. "Little Red Corvette" suggests that this was the B-side to some versions of that song.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. The song was recorded whenever and wherever 1999 was recorded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I looked at the sources used to support that claim, and the closest is Ebony saying it was one of a number of songs that "dominated dancefloors", which to me isn't the same as saying it is considered one of his most important records. Anyway, regarding your queries, I would think that (1), (2) and (4) could be solved simply by quoting the sleeve notes of the 1999 album, which would credit Prince as writer and producer and give details of the studio in which the album was recorded. As for (3), looking on Discogs.com, it appears the song only appeared as the second B-side of the reissued "Little Red Corvette" in 1983 in the UK only. The problem is Discogs isn't considered an RS, so that can't be used as a source. Richard3120 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

True Colors

Zedd and Kesha will release a second version/cover of his original song "True Colors". My question is, should the song be included as a single from his album True Colors (2015)? (the album track doesn't have any credited feature). Other singles have been remixed (like "Bad Blood") and still included as a single from its parent album. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Song versions

A user (Caden) has been editing many pages on songs, including "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'", changing how the pages are organized into a style he prefers, but unable to offer any good reason why. Caden appears to believe that all the different recordings should be labelled as just another version, even if one is the most important and original one, and the others minor or insignificant ones. His rationale appears to be that it was done in some other pages (a large number of which were in fact changed by him, e.g. Lady Marmalade, I Will Always Love You, Heart of Glass (song), Dancing in the Street, Ticket to Ride and many many more). When challenged, he can only offered the opinion that he knows what he is doing, that it is the correct way, and that the article should focused on all notable versions, which do not address the question why the article should be organized this way. Some discussion here. We have here someone who is forcing a style of how an article should be organized based on only his preference and not on any Wikipedia guidelines, with the claim that other pages followed this style when a large number of these are his own edits (i.e. he is in effect citing himself as the authority). We are here in danger being forced into a style that has no basis on style guidelines through the extensive edits of a few editors who aggressively revert others who disagree.

There are reasons why Caden's approach is wrong. As indicated in the discussion here, dictionary definitions of "version" show that it can carry the meaning of not being original (unless you qualified it as "original version" where it then just means one particular form). Placing information on the song origin in just one version also suggests that it may not apply to other versions (which is wrong), and furthermore it give undue weight to other minor versions that most people may not have heard of. The form that Caden prefers should really only be used when there is uncertainty about the origin of the song, where there are subsequent better-known versions. To me, the writing or background to the song would ideally be a main section rather than under the subsection of a version, for example the edit here, unless there are significant differences in the later versions.

Here I'm not interested in the behaviour of a single user, rather I'm interested in whether a style recommendation can be formulated for songs articles on this issue, and would be interested in suggestion. There are also editors who appear to think that because something is done in one page, it should be done on all pages, sometimes confusing a style used in one page as the recommended style. That this is not so should be make clear in the guidelines, and stop editors from forcing their own preferred style on others. Hzh (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do however also think that edits such as Caden's should be reverted or changed to a better way of organizing the article, not just because I think they are wrong for the reasons stated, but also because of the attempt to set what is a personal preference as the style for all song articles, and it is necessary to prevent such a dubious style from becoming the standard without discussion. Hzh (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

How exactly are my edits "dubious"? Please show me your evidence for these guidelines or rules you claim I ignored. Caden cool 18:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Caden's approach looks fine to me. Why do you think it is "dubious"? And where are these guidelines that you say he is wilfully ignoring? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@HZH please provide evidence using policies and guidelines that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you have reverted me on. I want evidence from you. Show me. Caden cool 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I've only followed the link to "Ticket to Ride" – I have to say the restructure there looks utterly terrible. I know from GA reviews that bullet lists, chart tables and especially something as obtrusive as chart-progression boxes all belong at the bottom of the article. If there's been more than one charting version of the song, then the chart boxes take corresponding headings. And I'm sorry but seeing, at "Ticket to Ride", the Beatles' involvement with the song being boxed away as "The Beatles original version" followed by a series of level 2 headings (i.e. the same treatment afforded the Carpenters' version) is effing ridiculous! It was an original composition by the band, a huge hit for them, heralded a completely new sound for them also, through the drum part and suggestion of drone, and it features in a memorable scene from their film Help! In this case, at least, there's just nothing to talk about – I'm changing it back now. JG66 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that each example will have different merits. And I'm not sure that a "one size fits all" approach will be beneficial. But I tend to agree with you over Ticket to Ride, except that calling it "Background" suggests that the original Beatles version was just a preliminary to the "real version" by someone else, which is quite bizarre. One can look at it both ways. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a different approach might be called for in other situations – say, if the song originated from Brill Building writers and was then farmed out to different artists. Or if the original version was a minor release and there's very little to say about its origins, yet the song subsequently became a standard. That's true. Can't see what you're saying about confusion in that Beatles example, though. It's the background to the song – inspiration, the actual act of composing. (Well, it would once the article's expanded. Then there'd be a section perhaps titled "Composition" discussing musical aspects of the song, interpretation of lyrics' etc. Then there'd be Recording, handling production and, er, recording. (Then, "Appearance in Help!", I'd imagine – with hopefully enough critical commentary to allow for a non-free image showing four stoned Liverpudlians skiing in the Austrian Alps …) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that Caden's is necessarily wrong. His is just a different approach. Personally, I'd steer clear of reverting anything, based on my own preference, until this discussion has run its course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just reverted my changes. "Ticket to Ride" is an article I'd love to expand for GA, and this is how I'd structure what we have so far. Basically, the problem is that there's just not enough content right now on the Beatles' original – musicologists' input, recording, appearance in Help!, live versions, contemporary & retrospective reviews, legacy … If all that were there, cover versions in their entirety (i.e. including the Carpenters) would amount to perhaps a quarter of the article instead of the current half share. The structure I'm suggesting is consistent with articles like "Something (Beatles song)", which has had many, many covers. JG66 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you should have done so. One issue here is him forcing every page to his own preference, and aggressively reverting anyone who disagrees, and refusing to participate in the discussion (that surely contravenes Wikipedia guidelines and rules). Since this discussion started, he has in fact kept reverting - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It is his edits, and it is up to him to explain himself in this discussion, not asking someone else to speak on his behalf here. I don't want this discussion to become focused on one person, but because it appears that he is the only one doing it to so many pages, it should be him to explain his action. And if he fails to discuss his actions, then that will be taken up elsewhere.
As for what is wrong, he is essentially not completely understanding the use of words. This is becoming a problem with Wikipedia, because certain words seem to be the preferred term by some editors without completely understand their meaning (another example is "legacy", which is applied indiscriminately on many pages, e.g. here). As already explained, there are dictionary definitions of the word, you write an article how most people would understand it, and using "version" may imply that the version of song is not original.
In this case Caden appears to add "version" everywhere, for example when I tried to us a different word, he'd change it to "version" here. You see it on pages where it is not really appropriate, for example in an article already specifically stated to be by Earth, Wind & Fire in its title - Fantasy (Earth, Wind & Fire song), he would still add an Earth, Wind & Fire version here. What we have is someone applying his own idiosyncratic approach to all articles, and we should not allow something idiosyncratic to become the norm in Wikipedia. I will asked Martinevans123 the question Caden refused to answer, would you describe "Poker Face (Lady Gaga song)" as just another version (which he did with the Earth, Wind & Fire song and many others), given that Glee also had a charted version? His approach means that the article could also be disambiguated as Poker Face (Lady Gaga and Glee song). And would you give equal prominence to a version of Poker Face charted only in say Bulgaria?
Per WP:UNDUE, we should not give equal prominence for something that is of minor significance to another of much greater importance. Furthermore, you structure an article in the way that is the most sensible, putting writing of the songs under one version can imply that it does not apply to other versions, which is just wrong. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hzh: Sorry, you don't think I should have done what? (Made the changes, or reverted them?)
  • Just to add, I think the layout at "Heart of Glass (song)" is also all wrong. "Heart of Glass" was/is a key track by Blondie, so it seems to me that the structure should not divide discussion of the song into "1. Blondie version" and "2. Gisele & Bob Sinclar version". I just followed a link to "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" from this project page WP:SONG#Categories: although that article contains no text that I can see on the well-known Rolling Stones version, I think the layout/heading hierarchy is good there. In that, if & when someone adds mention of the Stones' recording (and the band's regular inclusion of the song in their live performances), the new text would come under a level 1 heading, "5. The Rolling Stones version", but it's not as if all previous sections would then have to be rendered as level 2s under a new "1. The Temptations version". JG66 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@JG66: Sorry, I meant you shouldn't have reverted your own edits, your previous edit was good. "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" would be how most of these song articles we mentioned were organized, and I agree that it is the correct and sensible structure for most songs. Some songs however are difficult to organize well and do look a mess, for example Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) because there are so many well-known versions, putting all the cover versions under one main section and all of them start to merge into one amorphous mess, but separating them out and you get little bits which probably won't look good either. Some songs are better known by their cover versions, but we should still mention which are the original (e.g Without You (Badfinger song)). Hzh (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Caden asked me there, to "share my thoughts" not to speak on his behalf. So you may wish to retract your accusation. If you really "don't want this discussion to become focused on one person", then please don't mention him and stick to discussing articles and guidelines. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
If it helps with the discussion, then I will gladly retract it. The issue how is still that he refused to discuss his actions (while reverting other people's edits), instead asked a couple of other people to contribute. Hzh (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I certainly won't contribute here if you think I am simply a mouthpiece for the views of Caden. If you think he has been deliberately disruptive and needs to be sanctioned in some way, you need to raise that at another venue. I'll continue this discussion, and might even attempt to answer your question, if you don't mention individual editors in an accusatory way, but instead stick to a discussion of article structure and policy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I don't want the discussion to be about one editor even if it was his edits that are causing the problems, but would be happy to leave his actions out of this discussion completely (although examples may be used because of his large number of such edits). I hope some guidelines can be given on the organization of the article on issues like this, for example, whether a primary original version should be labelled as such, especially when the bulk of information on the article (the composition, recordings, reception, etc.) would be about that. I think we need to make clear at the least that each song may have very different history, and trying to impose a particular style is not useful. Hzh (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for listening. Unless someone knows differently, I suspect there are no current guidelines on this matter. So the discussion here might hopefully serve as a first step to formulating such guidelines. But I haven't trawled through the archives to see if this has been discussed before, and if it has what the outcome was. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we need something like the MOS for album here - WP:MOS-ALBUM. It is probably unnecessary to have one as detailed, but I think better guidelines than what we have currently is need. I would also solicit opinions on succession table, the guidelines here suggest placing it at the bottom but may also be place in an appropriate section - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, however I don't think placing it in individual sections looks good, for example I Will Always Love You, and would be better at the bottom, unless others feel different. Hzh (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a WP:MOS-SONGS wouldn't be a bad idea. Regarding succession tables, I agree that they're too much, partway through an article. I've seen editors remove them entirely (even when they appear at the foot of an article) and other editors rigorously defend their inclusion. As with the chart boxes relevant to particular versions of a song, I think they all belong out of the way of article text – as appendices to each song article.
The text should discuss the commercial/chart performance of each cover version, but the full details about charts peaks and certifications should sit removed from the main discussion. I've also seen examples of succession tables being hidden inside templates (at the bottom of articles) – that's a good idea too, imo. Basically, the main text in an encyclopaedic article should discuss the subject – that's the way I see it. And in most cases when there have been multiple successful cover versions, I imagine this would mean that the treatment for background/inspiration/composition/recording dwarfs all coverage of the later chart hits, and we wouldn't need to resort to the "original version" demarcation at all. That is: as long as those sections covering the song and its creation are given the due attention they deserve, based on the coverage they get from musicologists, biographers and other sources. Seems to me that some of the articles mentioned here, certainly "Ticket to Ride", have been loaded up with details about notable covers, but the attention due the song (the Beatles' creation of it) is currently missing. JG66 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with titling each notable cover as "version", even if one is by far the most notable. I think the discussion should focus on whether the track listings, personnel, chart performance, etc. should be included with each version, or whether they should be separated into a section for the personnel for all versions, a section for chart performance for all versions, and so on. Looking at "Dancing in the Street", for example, I can see that the second approach has been followed, and it looks somewhat confusing to me – it appears for instance that the track listings for the 1985 charity version have been listed twice, once under "Bowie/Jagger version" and again under "Live Aid version". This is the problem with this approach, you can get lost when you split up all the details belonging to one particular version.
The other thing is that the record label/catalogue numbers have been listed – there also needs to be consensus on whether these are included. I'm not in favour as these vary from one country to another: Caden's approach has been to just include the UK and US catalogue numbers but I don't know if this would be seen as placing undue bias towards those two countries.
Oh, and I'm not a fan of succession tables – as noted, they can get ludicrously long if a song has been number one around the world. Richard3120 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
As long as the succession table is at the bottom, I don't think it will be intrusive, even when there are large number of versions that had reached number 1, e.g. "Unchained Melody". I don't think most people would read beyond the reference section anyway. Album MOS do recommend using a nav box at the bottom that will be collapsed, although most people don't appear to follow this. Here the succession table for "Billie Jean" is done in collapsed form near the bottom in the Charts section. I should think when there are large number of entries, it should not be placed in a section unless it is in a collapsed form.
I do think "Dancing in the Street" is very badly organized, those who only looked at David Bowie and Mick Jagger version would have missed some important information about the song in the Martha and the Vandellas section. "Dancing in the Street" also shows another feature of song articles I'm not that happy about - excessive number of infoboxes for very minor versions (why would Black Oak Arkansas version warrant an infobox?), I'm wondering if something can be done to curb adding infoboxes for unimportant versions. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Several issues are being discussed here, but WP:SONGCOVER hasn't been mentioned yet. Quickly looking over the linked songs in this discussion, it is doubtful that many of the "versions" meet the criteria – they are not notable enough for a separate article or have not been discussed by a RS (does an AllMusic album track listing or an artist bio two-line mention constitute a discussion?). Perhaps SONGCOVER should be expanded to include ideas from UNDUE and WP:LAYIM (images/infoboxes should be spread evenly, not be "stacked", or placed in sections too small to contain them). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
We have a problem enforcing WP:SONGCOVER – I know the two guidelines for it seem pretty clear and easy enough to follow, but in practice many editors deliberately ignore it, feeling that all versions as well as YouTube parodies are worthy of mentioning. But that's a separate issue. Richard3120 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@HZH please explain your preferred version on all the song articles you stalked me on. Caden cool 18:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @HZH. Where are these so called policies and guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER or WP:SONG that support your preferred versions on all of the articles you reverted me on through stalking? Show me now please. Caden cool 22:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@HzH why haven't you kicked up a fuss regarding the word “version” over at The Tide Is High and I'll Be There (The Jackson 5 song)? I do not see you at either of those two talk pages nor do I see you edit warring over these two articles over the use of the word “version.” I wonder why? Oh wait, I know why. It's because I never edited those pages and since you are only interested in stalking my edits and reverting my work, you ignored “Tide Is High” and “I'll Be There”. You were aware of both articles as far back as March 13 when I linked both articles in a post on your talk page. Yet you never bothered to be distruptive at those articles, nor did you say a word on its talk pages either.How interesting. Caden cool 19:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather wary of saying anything further on this, I would just point anyone interested to the discussion at Talk:Johnny Angel (song). I have assume this is something that can be resolved by discussing it in the usual manner, but now after seeing the repetitive behaviour I no longer think this is something solvable through discussion, and I think it would be best to leave it to others. Hzh (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes User:Hzh would rather stay away from replying because he is guilty as sin. You stalked me and my edits for months. Caden cool 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So we're all agreed, are we, that there are no guidelines or policy on this matter, and it's currently just a matter of personal preference? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
True to some extent, but does that mean that one person can get his way by simply reverting everyone else's and refusing to discuss rationally? There are thousand of things that the guidelines cannot cover, and we resolve those through discussion. In this case, there are clearly logical hierarchical structure of article that needs to be followed rationally (for example not putting writing of song under one version). Wikipedia also has always responded to how people edited, then setting out guidelines if necessary on what to do on problems that are likely to arise again. The issue now however is one I think cannot be resolved through discussion, because it appears to be a personal behavioural issue (on that I will say no more, because I think it would inflame the situation further and cannot help with anything). Hzh (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the other editors who may wish to contribute here are not interested in claims of "one person getting his way" or "personal behavioural issues" or, for that matter, in any accusations of "stalking." The issue of how to treat "versions", by means of both description and structure, is likely to affect a very large number of song articles. It might be useful if we could just agree some guidelines or, if necessary, policy, to allow for a consistent approach? If you feel unable to contribute here, then perhaps both you and the other editor with whom you disagree will need to avoid making any conflicting edits on that topic until others have decided for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand why you said I'm unable to contribute to the discussion, I started the discussion here precisely because I wanted to find a solution. I am saying that it is not possible to discuss it in relation to what Caden did, not about the discussion on what to do with suggestions for guidelines on "version" and other issues (which you'll find is what I've been trying to concentrate on here). You will find that my position on using the correct hierarchical structure is supported by JG66. Would you recommend putting the writing of the song in only one specific version? Would you not see that it might imply that the writing of the song is only valid for one single version? Hzh (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I was thrown by you saying: "The issue now however is one I think cannot be resolved through discussion"? Yes, you did start the discussion here, but the third word suggests you started off on the wrong footing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I only meant the issue of what Caden did, which now appears to be something that we cannot and should not address here. That is different from the issue of the organization of articles (which would include dealing with different versions of songs), and I am still open for a wide-ranging discussion on a possible manual of style guidelines on articles related to songs. Since this one is getting bogged down on one issue, I will restart another one another day on such a wider discussion. Hzh (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
We'll all have to look forward to another day, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: just to be clear, we're talking about having a songs/singles equivalent of the album article style guide? I agree this would be useful, particularly now when the whole concept of what a single actually is has become very blurry, to say the least. Richard3120 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Most songs were singles, but don't always start as such. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
In regards to the "The Tide Is High" and "I'll Be There" articles, here is my dif [2] from March 13. Had User:Hzh been truly genuine and sincere over his concerns regarding the use of the word "version" in all articles, then why did he ignore both of these articles and their talk pages? Why? If you had been genuinely concerned you would have been involved on both articles of "Tide Is High" and "I'll Be There" as well as its talk pages. However, you did not care, because I never edited those two pages and you preferred to spend your time stalking me and my edits and reverting all my work instead. Not to mention you harassed me by opening multiple talk page threads on 6 other songs that were not a part of this discussion. You also stalked my talk page with bogus warnings. Anyway this entire thread here that was opened by you was not done in good faith. You were not concerned over the use of the word "version." You were only concerned in trying to get me into some type of trouble by accusing me of ridiculous things. Caden cool 00:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...

Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

New FA nomination - Slug (song)

I have nominated Slug (song), an obscure track by U2 and Brian Eno, as a featured article . This is the article's third nomination, as it was previously rejected for being "too short", despite being fully comprehensive and comparable in length to similar articles. I would appreciate to the support of other editors in this project to help get this featured. Thank you.

Link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slug (song)/archive3 –Dream out loud (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Song article nominated at FAC

Would be very much appreciated if anyone here can review or even just comment at my FAC. Best – jona ✉ 20:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Images of oldies songs

I don't know why a cover art from overseas is more preferred than a side label from home country. Perhaps this has more to do with showing images of artists or bands? Maybe to please the parameter Cover=? I had this situation at Hello, Goodbye with editors who opposed an inclusion of side labels just because it's not a cover or anything. In fact, I really thought a free image of a band or a singer would be a good substitute for a cover from overseas (but not the side label from home country). I added side labels and free images of artists at (They Long to Be) Close to You to make an overseas cover not necessary. In some cases, an overseas image may be used because the song was not individually, commercially released in its home country. This is the case for Money (Pink Floyd song), which uses the French cover art instead of the US (I mean the US; not a typo) side label because the UK did not have the single release of the song when it hit airwaves. Many oldies lacked picture sleeves in home countries, especially the US, probably for budget reasons. However, since the late 1970s (probably 1978, in the UK, picture sleeves for singles became more common.

This is before CD singles became prevalent in the 1990s. Also, this is before cassette singles became popular for a while until they were phased out. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

For just wondering, I used a Dutch picture sleeve for original recording of Venus (Shocking Blue song) because the band was Dutch and the recording studio that produced the song was probably Dutch. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The parameter is "cover", so picture sleeves are more appropriate. Also, single picture sleeves usually are more interesting than the label on the record or a stock artist photo. If a picture sleeve is not available for the home country release, I will use that of a foreign release. This seems to be followed in the examples you linked. Of course, consensus for individual articles should be followed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know which of my examples you refer to, Ojorojo. If you were discussing "Money", the UK single release didn't exist in the 1970s. French sleeve is used instead, but it looks similar to The Dark Side of the Moon. If "Venus", as said, the band was Dutch, even when they sang English. Even when a home country release lacked a picture sleeve, a label from that release would be used instead. Alas, people would disagree. Even when a home country did not have a single, why not use a label from overseas instead? Why using a sleeve that replicates an album cover? Would that confuse readers? There should be a project guideline about certain identifiers, like covers and labels. Somehow, I don't see a related discussion like this in archives. I might be missing something, am I? George Ho (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
George Ho, I imagine it's because the image used in the infobox is supposed to aid identification of the artist or the song described in the article. Very few singles released in the UK in the 1960s and early 1970s had picture sleeves: they came in the standard paper sleeve of the record label with the label's name on it, and a hole in the centre to display the label on the disc itself. This means if you were displaying the UK release of that single you'd just have a generic picture of the label on the record, which would be the same for every single released by that particular record company, and unless you could make out the name of the artist and title written on the label on the disc you wouldn't be able to identify it as the single in question. So picture sleeves from other countries are preferred as they usually showed a photo of the artist and their name and the title of the single in big letters on the front. Richard3120 (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Richard, we could use picture sleeves if a home country lacked a single release, like Money (Pink Floyd song). Otherwise, such practice would confuse readers, especially when an image caption is not inserted. Whether the UK release lacks a picture sleeve doesn't concern me; I'd prefer a side label over some foreign one... unless the song either was released individually as only promotional single in the home country or was not released as a singer there originally. George Ho (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I can also add a free image of an artist if identifying a song's performer(s) is the issue. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Yesterday" by The Beatles

I don't know where to discuss Yesterday (Beatles song) and Yesterday (EP). WT:WikiProject The Beatles is seldom used. I wanted to discuss this matter at another thread, but I don't want to go off-topic there. Both articles are a mess. You have Yesterday EP and then "Yesterday" US single. Is merger possible, or shall both remain as separate articles? --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would've thought it's obvious: start the discussion at Yesterday (EP) and provide a notification/link at both Yesterday (Beatles song) and WT:WikiProject The Beatles. A notification on this project's talk page would be good too, of course. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Those talk pages don't have new threads this year. --George Ho (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Er, all that means is that no one's had anything they want to raise for discussion. Such a popular song, I'd imagine Yesterday (Beatles song) is well "watched" on Wikipedia. You should certainly get the word out as I've suggested. JG66 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
If merged together, I think that the UK EP cover should be the sole infobox image. But I've not planned it yet. George Ho (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday is one of the most recorded songs in modern history, it has a place in the Beatle cannon as one of the first Beatle-written ballads, The article has information "about the song" (rather than just a bog-standard discography entry). It is a song which is notable in it's own right. How can anybody even think it should be merged? If this is merged we might as well delete/merge all songs and rename this project "record charts." If you think that was strongly worded be advised I am neither a fan of the song nor of the band. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Why do you want to merge the articles, George? As Richhoncho says, "Yesterday" the song and "Yesterday" the EP are not the same thing and there is enough information for both to exist as stand-alone articles. If you really wanted to start a discussion you would start a new section on the talk page of "Yesterday" (EP) and add the relevant merger tags to the top of the articles to be merged, as JG66 says, but I have to be honest, I don't think you'll find a lot of support for your idea. Richard3120 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, it makes no sense to merge the two. The Yesterday EP was a compilation of previously released tracks, as were a number of the Beatles' EPs. So, merging the two articles would mean we'd have an article for the band's 1963 EP The Beatles (No. 1) (which peaked at number 2 on the UK's EPs chart), but not for Yesterday (EP) (which topped the same chart). Capitol Records titled the 1970 Beatles compilation album Hey Jude after another of their most popular songs; Decca similarly took a seminal Stones track for the title of the 1971 Gimme Shelter album. But a merging of the two "Yesterday" articles would suggest that those compilations, and countless EP articles, don't merit their own Wikipedia articles either. JG66 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Merger out, so I guess the EP page must be improved. I am... not much of a fan of The (or the) Beatles either, but I think that EP deserves a makeover as the separate page. By the way, what about the reissue image in the song page? --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 20

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 20. Since when do we add redirects for every song on an album? Apparently Another Believer (talk · contribs) does so regularly. Should this be an accepted practice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There are other editors, including at least one other admin doing this. Another editor appears to be going through their record collection and creating redirects for all possible and impossible titles. I note one editor has created LAX (Jake Owen song), LAX (song), L.A.X. (song) and L.A.X. (Jake Owen song). Does this one album cut deserve 4 redirects? I think not.
There is a greater discussion to be had here, that is, should redirects be created and sustained with "redirects are cheap" or, because redirects are cheap every album can have every song as a redirect too? Should notification of this discussion be over at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion.
Interesting to see how other editors feel about this. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I probably didn't state my case clearly on the other discussion thread, but I agree with Walter Görlitz that we shouldn't be creating redirects where no article existed in the first place, simply because we have no idea what songs of the same title may come up in the future... it may result in the redirects needing to be renamed for disambiguation purposes. Richard3120 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Richard3120. Just to ask the question. Are you saying an editor could create articles for all the songs on an album, which would then be converted to redirects and that would be OK? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Richhoncho, no, absolutely not! It seems a hugely time-consuming and entirely pointless task because, as Walter says, the likelihood of anybody looking on Wikipedia for an article on a non-notable album track is negligible, so why create a "solution" when there's no demand for it? It renders WP:NSONGS redundant because we're effectively saying that every song is notable enough to be searched for and have its own redirect (or more than one redirect), and it creates a huge amount of potential maintenance work in future to change and disambiguate all the redirects every time another song of the same name crops up. And considering we struggle with keeping up maintenance as it is, I don't see how creating yet more unnecessary work is at all helpful to the project and Wikipedia in general. I would imagine from the amount of time you spend on PRODs and AfDs of non-notable songs that you aren't in favour either. If there really is a demand for a separate article on the album track I'm sure someone would recreate it in the future, but a deletion in accordance with WP:NSONGS seems much better than lots of redirects. Richard3120 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact, AfDs, PRODs, and speedy deletions would most likely not leave a redirect for a non-notable subject. They are only left if it would be a likely search term. That's standard in AfDs anyhow. This is just a way of avoiding that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Richard3120, I was asking a question only, thanks for your answer. Walter, recently, I note there is an editor redirecting all (most?) PRODS to redirects (not just song articles), and many song AfDs result in a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have a talk with that editor, if you point me to them. I have not seen that behaviour with PRODs and the AfDs I've seen do not leave redirects.
Even if they did leave redirects, at least there would be a reason to do so: a likely search term. That's not the case with every song on a barely notable album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Richhoncho, yes I know, I was just trying to clarify why I wouldn't be in favour of such a suggestion – sorry if it came across as abrasive, I didn't mean to be. :-)
Walter Görlitz: absolutely, and I can't see why a redirect would be preferred over a straightforward deletion in most cases where it is clear the song is not notable... I see there was a comment that "redirects are cheap" but in terms of time potentially spent by editors in the future to rename them, no, they're not cheap compared with a deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently has decided that all 37 redirected song titles (should have been 38, so I missed one) are are valid redirects because they use {{R from song}}. We need a guideline now and have this reversed. If no guideline is created by the weekend, I will, as a protest, create a redirect for every song of every album article on my watch list because "it's valid". I will also add hatnotes to every possible term, because "it's valid". Yes, apparently, it's valid to waste resources. It's good to know that's the case. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fair to redirect songs (even non-notale songs) to album articles when such articles contain at least a reasonable amount of information on them. Redirecting to articles with nothing about what the reader was looking for, on the other hand, seems pointless to me. Victão Lopes Fala! 19:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The articles in question have only track listings. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I see SSTflyer (talk · contribs) has undone his premature closes and we can now comment there if we wish. 208.81.212.224 do not, I repeat, do not create redirects for albums on your watch list at the moment, it would be disruptive. Thanks.
The problem is, as I see it, there are no guidelines to stop redirects being created, this project has a special problem, insomuch that every album contains a number of songs and there are 295,000+ album articles on WP. That, quite frankly, is too many redirects. However, without the consent of the wider non-song project members we cannot enforce a guideline "just for songs." I suspect the present nominations will be saved because of this, especially unfortunate as not only non-notable songs have been created, but all variants of title presentation, too. Perhaps the variants can be deleted as a matter of course? Also to be considered is that few song titles are unique. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. 208.81.212.224 is my work IP. I don't edit signed-in from work.
Now that the XfD has been reopened, I'll hold off. For the record, IPs can't have watch lists. Sorry if that caused confusion. Also for the record, I really do have better things to do with my time than create 50,000 ±20,000 redirects, so I'm happy to step away from that ledge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Certification table entries for certain countries

I've posted here about my concerns that several of the template links originally used for various countries in the certification table no longer work – as the members of this project will use this template for their singles articles I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Liner notes versus PROs

What is the community/WikiProject's consensus on the liner note songwriters versus that listed in BMI or ASCAP? Just to explain more this would be in situations when the liner note does not conform to what is listed in BMI or ASCAP as songwriters. —IB [ Poke ] 18:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The only example I've had any editing involvement with is "Bell Bottom Blues" by Derek and the Dominos. The sleeve notes have always credited the writing of the song to Eric Clapton, but in recent years Bobby Whitlock has said he co-wrote it, Clapton has agreed, and the BMI website now credits them both. Based on this case, the BMI credit is the more up-to-date source, so should probably take precedence, but I'd be inclined to take it on a case-by-case basis. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The BMI/ASCAP listing will probably be more accurate. The liner notes are a primary source and there may be other marketing considerations. Where there is a discrepancy I would refer to WP:NPV, so which suggests it is not for editors to decide what is "true" or "false" --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
So Richhoncho essentially you are saying to present both sides of the story right? Like how its done in the article "Teeth"? —IB [ Poke ] 22:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Richhoncho Another case, "Bitch I'm Madonna" is credited to Onika Maraj a.k.a Nicki Minaj on the official album credits, but she is not credited on ASCAP (search "Bitch I'm Madonna" in the link). Minaj always wrote her rap verse, so in this case the liner note seems more accurate. I fully agree with you that it is not for editors to decide the truth. As long as it is verifiable, it's fine. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bluesatellite: Your claim is very inaccurate, because the link you provided doesn't state the songwriters of any of the songs, as to BMI and ASCAP, they do, so I'm going to have to agree with @Richhoncho:, since clearly as you see, BMI and ASCAP tend to have more detailed info about a certain song. Xboxmanwar (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bluesatellite: @IndianBio:. I repeat, the Performing Rights Organisations (PROs) - ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, SOCAN, APRA (and others with searchable databases) are probably more accurate and discrepancies should be noted and not ignored. Only for example and without commenting, Bitch I'm Madonna, I note that Nicki Minaj is a BMI-Registered songwriter and that the song does not appear in the BMI catalogue. There are several reasons for the omissions, and I note 3 of them, 1. She didn't write anything for this song, 2. Somebody in the NM camp didn't complete the paperwork correctly, or 3. Both BMI and ASCAP have made a clerical error. As no editor can ever know what really happened, just explain the differences. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
PS. I have just searched songfile.com and that also lists NM as a songwriter of Bitch I'm Madonna. On balance, we now have two sources which agree independently so I think I would go with NM as a writer of the song. NB FWIW, The reason I put additional credence on the PROs is because that's how the writer gets paid - if that's wrong you don't get paid! --Richhoncho (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: Real talk right here, thank you so much for helping me support my claim. Also, I think BMI and ASCAP would be a bit more accurate as to being used as sources, but SongFile looks like it can also work too. Xboxmanwar (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Xboxmanwar:. I wasn't supporting anybody, I was supporting WP:NPV, if any editor wishes to point out that BMI fails to list the song and ASCAP omits NM's name, that would also be "true." --Richhoncho (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that holding the copyrights to a song is not the same as a writing credit. For example, Michael Jackson famously owned the rights to the majority of The Beatles' catalog, but never wrote a single one of those songs. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fezmar9: This isn't about copyright of songs, its about the sourcing of songwriting credits, that's what is being in discussion, plus BMI and ASCAP lists the songwriters and the publishing companies, not the copyright holders. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fezmar9:. Michael Jackson owned the company that owned the PUBLISHING rights, whereas we have been discussing the SONGWRITING credits, which always remain with the writers. This leads on to another common example - in the WP articles for Beatle songs, for example, Yesterday, it says written by PM but credited to PM/JL. This is correct, well documented and a good template to use when there is variation in the listed songwriters, although you will be hard-pressed to find something as well-documented as the Beatles. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Widespread usage of inaccessible text

Hey. As per WP:FONTSIZE, small tags shouldn't be used in infoboxes. Since infoboxes already have small font, additional small tags cause the font size to drop below 11px, making it very difficult for those with vision impairment to read the article. I've just noticed that this markup is in widespread use within {{Infobox single}} for various purposes. For instance, in Smells Like Teen Spirit, small text is used to denote the certifying agency and the different song lengths between the album and song. How would you like to proceed? I could have a bot go through and remove small tags in certain situations (certifications, for example, which all look more-or-less the same) and then clean up any remaining unusual usages of small tags myself. They could replaced with nothing (reverting to full-sized normal text) or replaced with italics and/or a gray font color. As a more extreme alternative, we could increase the font size of the entire infobox so the small text within it is no longer an issue, but that would be a very extreme response. Thoughts? ~ Rob13Talk 20:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder about the use of the certification parameter within infoboxes anyway – I think this mostly gets deprecated these days in favor of a separate section alongside the weekly and year-end charts. Makes sense, otherwise you could have certifications from many countries clogging up the infobox. I don't know what others feel about the use of small tags in infoboxes, but I have no objection to removing them. I would have thought just removing small tags and reverting the font to standard size would be the best option – I don't think we want to start messing around with infobox sizes or different text colors within articles. I think the majority of small tags are probably to distinguish between different running times (between album versions and single edits, for example) or to note the release on different record labels in different countries of the world. Richard3120 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
In investigating this issue, I found the most common usage to be those RIAA certification notes. If you'd like to deprecate the certification parameter entirely, we could do that too and work through the articles creating a certifications section in the article text (if one isn't already there) while removing the parameter from the infobox. ~ Rob13Talk 20:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's see what other editors think – normally the guidelines state that if there is only one certification, the Certification Table templates should not be used and a line of text should be used instead. Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Many infoboxes contain superfluous information that detracts from their main purpose, which according to MOS:INFOBOX is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content" (emphasis added). Template:Infobox single#Parameters includes:
  • "Released: This field should refer to the earliest known commercial release date, using a single occurrence"
  • "Format: The way that the single was originally released"
  • "Label: This field should refer to the label on which the single/album was originally released. Where significantly different versions have been released (featuring alternate track listings) e.g. U.S. vs. UK, the later release date and/or record label should be mentioned in the article"
The thrust is key facts about the original single and not all the permutations. Certifications (especially from multiple countries) come later and are more appropriate for the body of the article. I would also argue that chronologies, album track listings, alternative covers, music samples, etc. are unnecessary and make the infobox too long, sometimes extending it into later article sections besides the lead where it is appropriate (see WP:LAYIM). Since an infobox is a summary, the items should be discussed in the body (infobox items should not "supplant" article material). If smaller fonts are being used for secondary information, then it shouldn't be there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Ojorojo, I agree with most of that: I don't agree with the use of the Template:Audiosample in the infobox, and I've never understood what the purpose of Template:Extra track listing was other than to provide unnecessary clutter – knowing that a song is track five on a particular album doesn't tell me anything about the song itself. I would certainly be in favour of removing this extra template from the infobox.
There are a couple of issues that need clarifying though:
  • Label: this isn't an issue these days with only four major labels releasing records worldwide simultaneously via the internet, but in the old days of physical product the problem is that a single was often released simultaneously in different countries but on different labels, which were all imprints of an umbrella company. For example, Phonogram often released songs across the world on varying labels (Mercury, Fontana, Vertigo, Polydor, etc.), depending upon which label was more established in a particular country. So which label(s) should be included?
A RS is needed to confirm that in fact it was originally released simultaneously by several labels. If this can be shown, it would require a different approach that should be determined by consensus. I think a case can be made for using the artist's home country label. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Length: do we go for the track length on the album, or the single edit? What about if the song had different edits in different countries ("I'm Not in Love"), or was released in different mixes in different countries ("Mothers Talk" – I realise in the case of this particular song the release dates were different so the UK version takes precedent, but I'm just using it as an example)?
If Template:Infobox single is being used, then the info it contains should pertain to the single release only. When there are different edits, mixes, etc., only the earliest or original should be used (if simultaneous, see above). Perhaps this wording should be added in "Parameters – Length" field explanation to make it consistent with the "Released", "Format", and "Label" field explanations. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternate album cover: I agree these should be used as sparingly as possible; minor changes such as the artist in a different pose from what is obviously the same photo session aren't needed. But I can see a couple of examples where you might consider making an exception – where the album cover of a well-known album is SO different from one country to another that Americans simply would not recognise the British cover, and vice versa (Only by the Night); and where the original cover was produced in limited quantities due to low initial sales, and the cover that is now used as standard on all subsequent reissues after the record has achieved worldwide recognition is in fact a later design (Trans-Europe Express). Richard3120 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, album covers can only be used in album infoboxes and in limited non-free use situations. Single covers (picture sleeves) are much less recognizable and shouldn't be treated the same as album covers. The original should be used if one was issued. Alternate covers may be used in the body of the article if they can be justified. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. However, we run into another issue here, and some editors may be aware of the stance of the editor GeorgeHo on this subject. In the UK picture sleeves for singles were not common until the mid to late 70s, well after most other countries adopted them. GeorgeHo is of the opinion that for British artists, in the absence of a picture sleeve, a picture of the centre label of the British version of the single should be used instead. However, other editors feel that because labels had a standard design for each release by that record label, and the only difference was of course the artist name and song title, which may not be particularly readable at the resolution used in the infobox, it would be better to use the picture sleeve from another country instead, where the artist name and song title are usually more visible, and often include a picture of the artist on the cover, to help identification. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment only: A record label is not the same as a record company. For instance, Vertigo and Fontana were labels, not record companies, both being part of the Philips group, which is a record company that also acted as a label. There is a lot of misinformation on WP because some editors do not understand the difference and I am too lazy to check and correct. In answer to the discussion, the infobox relates to key information only that relates to the song and the release that made it notable only. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Richhoncho, I know that – what I am trying to point out is that if, say, a single was released on the same day in the UK and US, but on the Vertigo label in the UK and on the Fontana label in the US, which of those two labels do we use in the infobox? Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit: here's a obvious example of what I mean. Before he set up his own Rocket Record Company, Elton John's singles were released on DJM Records in the UK, but on MCA Records in the US and Canada. If we look at the article for "Daniel", for example, both record labels are shown in the infobox, with a release date of 26 March 1973. Now, this date is not confirmed anywhere in the article, and may well be incorrect, as 26 March was a Monday, and I think standard release days at the time were Tuesday for the US and Friday for the UK. But let's assume for now that the single was indeed released on a Monday in both countries – so should we go with just DJM Records in the infobox, as the label of Elton's home country? I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone here, just pointing out some potential issues so that we can come to a consensus about what should be included. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Since both would appear to be "original", it would be easy to say "list both". However, when there are several, listing them all would overload the infobox. Establishing a guideline needs to take into account the different possibilities. The home country release seems like a reasonable choice, but that can become tricky with someone like Hendrix. Probably this needs to be decided case by case by consensus. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have no problem with establishing a consensus with a view to forming a guideline. I was simply trying to show that just stating that only one record label should be entered into this parameter is not always a cut and dried issue, and it's the reason why all these small font sizes to differentiate between "UK" and "US" releases (for example) started up in the first place. In Elton John's case this is probably quite easy to resolve, because it looks like his records were released in most of the major markets worldwide on the DJM label, and only on MCA in the US and Canada, so there are only two labels to deal with. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This may be an appropriate time to open up a discussion on removing/limiting the miscellaneous fields (extra chronology, track listing, extra cover, audio sample, etc.) from both Infobox single and Infobox song. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to lend my services later on if you need any botwork related to reworking these infoboxes in general, but can we get a quick confirmation that removing the small tags from the stuff currently in the infobox is appropriate to satisfy WP:FONTSIZE? I can keep a log of all pages my bot (or myself) edits to accomplish this, which could then be used as a list of what pages may need looking at for the type of reworking you're discussing. ~ Rob13Talk 16:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Complying with WP:Fontsize should be OK pending a decision on eliminating fields. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Are we having that discussion on this thread, or should we start a new one? Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Let Rob do his thing (I don't think there are any objections). It would be better to start a new "Should miscellaneous fields/information be removed from Infobox songs and singles?" discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Do feel free to discuss here if it's better not to interrupt the discussion. Sorry for steering the discussion back to my original question somewhat forcefully; I just needed a clear yes/no before the wider discussion on the infoboxes got underway so that I could bring it to BRFA. ~ Rob13Talk 22:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sia's Cheap Thrills article is underperforming.

The introduction, the commercial performance and the critical reception are all underwhelming and full of contradicting, false information. There is even no single mention to the youtube views. Sad that such a hit is treated just like any other song by a pop star. make it more interesting!Estodiantes (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Estodiantes is clearly a sock of the de facto banned SalemHanna. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Estodiantes: the number of YouTube views is not considered to be a vital piece of information except in the case where a record is broken or some sort of milestone is reached, for example, in the case of Psy's "Gangnam Style". If you feel you can improve the article with reliable, independent sources, please go ahead – after all, Wikipedia is free for anybody to edit. Exactly what parts are "underwhelming" and "full of false, contradicting information"? It includes a description of the song's composition, some critical reviews, a section on the accompanying promotional video, worldwide chart positions and certifications – there isn't very much missing as far as I can see. Richard3120 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_15&oldid=1221024659"