Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 5

GA reassessment of Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Example use of infobox

-> Click the (see Release Information)

Note the release date is deliberately left empty. Adding credit to SunCreator (talk) 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Also note the Format field is deliberately left empty.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"WikiProject Songs/Archive 5"
Song

• Replaced the fair-use cover image with a free one, since I don't believe fair-use would cover this :). Liquidluck✽talk 06:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it defeats the purpose of having a "release date" field if you don't have an actual date to put in there. Linking to article sections in the infobox should not be encouraged, because it's redundant to the table of contents and defeats the purpose of an infobox as a concise visual summary. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

UK hit singles

I wanted to make you aware of this list which I have created that shows redlinked UK top 10 singles. Can I get some help creating stub articles for these missing songs and artists. I would also appreciate some help improving my "List of top 10 singles in .... (UK)" articles. Please let me know here. 03md 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the list(and others like it) a while back. Two problems, firstly editors tend to continously redirect new song articles(it's against policy, but in practice it happens), next if you are prepared to establish it then it could go to AFD as none notable. The bar for notability of songs is quite high(compared to an average article). If you read the detail of WP:NSONGS you will see that one criteria as 'articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.' - in practice this means that for challenged articles it has to get beyond a stub in order to prove that it complies and thus meets notability for a songs. So the question is would it be worth time to create stub article that could be deleted again, the answer for me at least is no. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on amending Template:Infobox Song

Please see here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Release history situation

About the release history situation above, I think that the section in Telephone (song) that splits radio and purchase is the best case, and also suits both sides of the debate. Anyone else agree? Candyo32 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the usage at Blah Blah Blah (song). First avail for purchase as a single for the date in the infobox. I also prefer the section title of 'Radio and release history' and the subsection titles of 'Radio add date(s)' and 'Release history'.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment of Cool (Gwen Stefani song)

I have nominated Cool (Gwen Stefani song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Scarce ✉ 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the song "River of Love"

 Done

The reference for the song "River of Love" states: "River of Love" is the title of a country music song written by Billy Burnette, Shawn Camp and Dennis Morgan. It was recorded by George Strait on his 2008 album Troubadour, from which it was released in November 2008 as that album's third single. The 87th single of his career, it is also his 80th Top Ten on the Billboard country charts, as well as his 44th Number One.

There are additional songs entitled "River of Love", one such having been written and released by T-Bone Burnett in 1986 on the self titled album "T-Bone Burnett". Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Bone_Burnett_(album). I believe there needs to be a disambiguation on the "River of Love" song page. Magdalorne (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on new song pages

I've started documenting some singles for the German group Alphaville, and as yet most of the new pages are unreviewed. I'd like to invite folks to provide feedback, make improvements, and maybe remove the 'unreviewed' tag if appropriate. I am new to writing articles in Wikipedia, so I'm aware I've made some mistakes when it comes to style, references, etc., so I'd like the feedback so I can make the appropriate adjustments.

Jet Set - Dance with Me - Universal Daddy - Jerusalem - Sensations - Red Rose

I'd like to get feedback on these pages so I can be sure to apply this information to any future articles I write.

Thanks! 87Fan (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article require much more prose, try and find more sources, add both the source and copyedit suitable information like reviews of the singles. I have some bad news also the songs are going to have a tough time with the notability requirements of songs. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been doing what research I can, the problem is of course that most of this music was released ~25 years ago, so any reviews etc. are in hard copy magazines and rarely online. I will continue to find sources to quote for the articles. As for notability, I looked through the article on what constitutes notability requirements and I figured that the singles for a band that released 3 #1 singles worldwide was good enough? I am not planning on documenting all their songs individually, just the singles.

Thanks for the feedback given so far, if anyone thinks of anything else please pass it along.

87Fan (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Noability isn't inherited from the artists, the single has to stand on it's own merits. The text in Sensations (Alphaville song) says it didn't chart in any country and charting is a typical way to establish notability. That is only one way of course and this may of won a significant award or something. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant CfRs

Please review I have added two CfRs which would involve a lot of category renaming if they pass, so I figured I should give this WikiProject the heads-up: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_13#Category:Songs_by_artist and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_13#Category:Songs_by_songwriter. Your feedback is appreciated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Project page.

Glancing through, it seems that the whole page could do with a little sorting and updating. These are things that bother me. Anybody else got any suggestions?

1. Remove "A lot of this project has been lifted directly from the Albums project. This project is not yet fully defined, so feel free to modify and clarify it."  Done
2. Articles for deletion archives. Remove whole section and put a link into current deletion. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs

 Done--Richhoncho (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Re-organising the order of the sections, i.e. Notability, Naming, References, Stubs, categories, resources, featured articles, members.
2. Disambiguation of song titles. Amend so we do not see see covers of well-known songs titled like Me and Mrs. Jones (Michael Bublé song). This title suggests ownership, whereas it is a cover. I would like to see something along the lines of "name after artist PROVIDING artist contributed to the writing of the song" Disambiguation by year of publication/first release is acceptable - which is the way most of the older song entries are done, or by the songwriter(s).

The last one might be considered contentious, in which case we can list and deal with separately. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the first three ideas, but I'm a little confused by the fourth. Do you mean something like One (U2 cover by Mary J. Blige) by that suggestion? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I had meant a title could be, for instance, One, One (song), One (U2 song) or One (1991 song), I must admit I am trying to avoid, One (Mary J. Blige cover) for a number of reasons, including the fact it doesn't work on older songs, but perhaps we will need it anyway. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Song notability and prodding

I started doing some Project tagging and assessment and what I have noticed is many of the songs don't really come close to satisfying song notability. Would it be okay to WP:PROD them? The reason that I ask is that if I get into it, the numbers might approach hundreds that end up at Afd and so it might be a bit overwhelming. Hence I ask in advance. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Only 100s? You're not looking very hard! What I have been doing is putting a notability|music tag on them. That gives notice that the article isn't up to scratch. In many instances I would hope that somebody would then merge into the relevant album/artist. If I come across a notability tag that's left there I would prod. That's not to say I think your way is wrong, it won't do the project any harm at all to clear away the nn. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Project tagging and assessment

I'd like to do someProject tag, but before I start on mass, I have some questions.

1. Should the template {{Songs}} or {{WikiProject Songs}} or does it not matter. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Template says to use {{songs}}, many pages use {{WikiProject Songs}}. An editor raises the same question on Template_talk:Songs. Some editors replace {{songs}} with {{WikiProject Songs}} saying that it is not correct naming for a WikiProject template.
2. There is no advice given on importance. Typically a wikiproject has a pyramid with 1-2% of articles of Top importance, 4-5% High importance, 18-22% Mid importance and the remainer about 75% as low importance. To this end I make a suggestion that

• Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia

Defining concepts applying across many articles, such as Song, Songwriter, Lyrics, Single (music) etc (1.5%=60 articles)

• High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge

Significant concepts like Cover version, Hymn, National anthem, Ballad and culturally internationally impacting songs that most people would know of. Hey Jude, Bohemian Rhapsody, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Imagine (song), Stairway to Heaven, Hard Rock Hallelujah listed in The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time or in Top30 sellers of it's year or on the list of ESC winners (5%=2000 articles)

• Mid Subject fills in more minor details

More detail of concepts and big national songs, typically those that would be in the Top100 seller of it's year, Top3 in national weekly charts of a major music country(US,Japan,UK,Germany&France) or #1 of a minor music country, national anthems, ESC finalist. Example: A-side and B-side, Big Girls Don't Cry (Fergie song), Love Like This, Is It True?, The Star-Spangled Banner (20%=8000 articles)

• Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest. (30000 articles)

Everything else

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The 2 templates are a strange one, both locked from editing, both same wording, and apparently fully interchangeable. Why an editor should bother to swap them is beyond me. I would think the best policy would be to stick with WPsong as it is then in line with other WPProjects. I might even be tempted to have song deleted and find a friendly bot to move all the entries.

I don't disagree with your general analysis of what constitutes importance save that I am not sure your first tier should be referred back to the main WP Project, music, and I would be very tempted to put in a very nice way, words to the effect, "don't let personal preferences get in the way." All in all, good work, SunCreator. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The first tier is interesting. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music don't give any assessments "Assessments are done by individual music projects" they say, you will notice those example top level aricles - Song, Songwriter, Lyrics and Single (music) are only tagged with {{songs}} or indeed not tagged at all. I'm not sure it will amount to around 60 articles, but will only find out in practice. SunCreator (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops I didn't read the small print, WPSongs is a re-direct to Songs. I would have done it the other way, but can't think of a really good reason to change it. So songs it is. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest moving {{songs}} to {{WikiProject Songs}} for consistency. –xeno^talk 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For info, User:MSGJ has just moved {{Album}} to {{WikiProject Albums}} with the rationale that it is the standard name for WikiProject banners. I don't know where he got that from, but if he is right it's certainly a logical suggestion to do the same for {{Songs}}. – IbLeo^(talk) 16:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is the reasoning behind having to type that much more? {{Song}} works just fine, as does {{Album}}. I see no need to change them that is not pure and outright semantics. In fact, making them redirects then REQUIRES all of them to be updated, as a redirected template won't parse if the redirect is called. There are better things that could be done with that time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirected templated parse just fine, unless I misunderstand what you're driving at –xeno^talk 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my experience has been odd. I swear when I was moving a template at one point I had a lot of errors pop up for a short time on pages it was used on, as it would show the code calling the redirect rather than the template that is being redirected to. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having the shorter redirect to the longer unless there is some pressing need to disambiguate the fact that the WikiProject is the intended target. Eg, {{Contemporary music}} (the template) vs {{WikiProject Contemporary music}} (the redirect); also, {{Composers}} and {{WikiProject Composers}} (same). That seems to be the pattern up and down WP. My guess is that {{Album}} may be needed for some other purpose in the very near future so the template was moved and a redirect created, pro temporis. Martin can probably explain that move, though --Jubilee♫clipman 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that. I think he just standardized it with other WikiProjects. One compelling reason to have a standard form "WikiProject Foo" is so that bots and the like can identify which of the templates in the top business of a talk page are banners. –xeno^talk 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I never thought of that. So should the {{Contemporary music}} and {{Composers}} templates be moved over also? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably. For now, I've gone ahead and moved the {{Songs}} to {{WikiProject}}. –xeno^talk 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do about incorrect or inconsistent composing credits?

The blues song "Need Your Love So Bad" was, according to the most carefully researched and reliable sources, written by Mertis John Jr., and first recorded by his younger brother Little Willie John. The song has subsequently been covered many times, and many credits reflect the true history, crediting the songwriting to "M. John". However, some do not - including one of the most popular versions by Fleetwood Mac, a 1968 UK hit originally included on the album The Pious Bird of Good Omen, which credited the writing to Little Willie John, and has continued to do so on later compilations. (The credit in the WP article has recently been changed, I think, by another editor who knows this story.) The question is, when a songwriting credit on a single or album is known to be wrong, should it be changed to reflect the true authorship; should it remain as published on the record; and/or, either way, should there be a note to explain? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The best places to check for the authorative definations is ASCAP or BMI, BMI lists Need Your Love So Bad so now you can quote the authors with references. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good advice - but that page credits both of the brothers, which I have never seen before on any of the recordings. Aaagh!! Clearly it does so because each one has been credited on different versions - so it actually doesn't resolve the question. In this case, I doubt whether the writing credits have been tested in court, probably because both alternatives are "family", and one of the two (Little Willie John) is long dead anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't have different songwriters for different recordings (with the exception of mash ups etc.). Listing LWJ, FM and Whitesnake should prove that for you. BMI shows who is receiving the royalties for the song, irrespective of what is listed on the record sleeve etc. Furthermore, somewhere in the vaults at BMI there will be signed documents confirming that the 2 brothers agree that they have co-written the song should both be receiving writer royalties for the song. There would be no point in testing the writing credits in this case unless one of them could prove that the other had held a gun to their head to sign the publishing deal! Of course, in reality one may have written the song and shared with the other, but BMI and ASCAP should always be treated as the official and authorative version of events. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I take the point in a way, but in fact Little Willie John (alone) is credited on the Fleetwood Mac version of the song, and Mertis John (alone) on the Irma Thomas version - so, whether or not it should happen, in that particular case it does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not disputing that at all. There are many instances where to songwriter credits are incorrect on the record. As I say, when available, BMI/ASCAP should be treated as authorative because it confirms there is a legal document, signed by the parties which confirms authorship. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in here... So it should be credited 'properly' per BMI/ASCAP in the wiki article infoboxes and the difference explained in the article text, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, I don't see any reason why other reliable sources should be not assumed to be correct - including record labels, but where there is a dispute the PRO can be used as the authorative version. Certainly agree any differences can/should be explained in the text. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

...which would surely imply that, if it is necessary to ensure that the correct legal position is stated on WP, the BMI/ASCAP position should be checked in every case, to ensure that the information published on labels and album covers, etc., matches the authoritative up-to-date legal credits? More sensibly, perhaps, WP should rely on the information published by others, and ignore any conflicts - perhaps except (but treading very carefully) where the existence of a conflict (not necessarily a legal conflict, but clearly conflicting information), has been shown to exist. Presumably if editors themselves identify an apparent error or conflict, that would be inadmissible original research, yes? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if two reputable sources disagree, quoting the sources and pointing out the discrepancy wouldn't be original work. It should be noted that neither BMI/ASCAP have a complete database of their works and there other PROs that do not make their database available online. I have certainly changed a number of songwriter credits and used ASCAP/BMI as the source. However, I do assume good faith and only check if I think there is an error. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so that I am absolutely clear about this particular song - "Need Your Love So Bad". WP should / must quote the BMI accreditation (as above) as to the songwriters, irrespective of any / all other reliable sources, but make reference to the differences in each of the article texts that list this song (well over 20 such instances). This is quite important to me: firstly, as the new article's 'creator'; secondly the fact that the article currently makes presumably 'dubious' statements about the songwriter(s); and the article is presently up for a DYK, with the hook based around the indiscrepancies over songwriting credit. I think this has the potential to run and run, bearing in mind the various cover versions of the song, a fair number of which are currently part of WP articles. I am sorry if I am appearing to press this point. However, it is crucial to me (and presumably others) to be completely clear in these instances, as to what is agreed, consensus WP protocol. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I need to clear up what a PRO is, ie ASCAP/BMI. They are royalty collection agencies for songwriters. So, supposing you have written a song and you are lucky enough to get a big name to record it, one of the first things you need to do is to ensure you get your money for performances on TV, radio, ballrooms, bars, clubs etc. This you do by registering your interest with a PRO and sign a form to confirm you (and your co-writers) have written the song and want the $s, £s and Yen due to you, without doing this you won't get a dime for performances. Mechanical rights are a separate issue and you will/may have to register there too. Taking NYLSB as an example, when any money is earnt on the song the royalties will be paid to the 2 named songwriters or their estate, and, if applicable, a share going to a publishing/clearing house. As they say 'money talks.' This is why I say with certainty that the PROs are THE primary source over and above everything else. Obviously because I have been such a great help in getting your song recognition with the right people you have let me sign as a co-writer (thanks, guys!) which is patently not true, however, there generally isn't another primary source that confirms this beyond reasonable doubt. And before anybody else mentions it, I am aware of various claims against less than scrupulous music business people and the like, sure it happened, but not on the scale that everybody imagines. Also where partners split everything 50/50 even though they don't always even write together, but it would be OR to establish how many notes/words each writer contributed to a song, especially as songwriting is not a spectator sport. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And here's one I have just checked and amended, She's Like the Wind. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That just leaves me to wonder why and how songwriting gets miscredited time and again. That, and how long it will take me to re-edit all those articles containing incorrect songwriting credits; to not only reflect the 'correct situation', but also explain the discrepancy between record label listings and reality. Phew.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Because if it isn't "singer-songwriter" nobody cares anymore. And it helps to big up the performer (I can't beleive all those J-Pop singles are self-written). BTW, ASCAP is the place to check for all British stuff, unfortunately, the PRS doesn't have a publicly searchable database. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Order

What should I wear first? the charts/track or the cover?, sometimes do not understand why several notable songs have different orders, such as "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Whole Lotta Love".--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Blessed Assurance

Does any 1 know who wrote this song please do tell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.216.23 (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you bother to look in Wikipedia? Try Blessed Assurance. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WPSONG

Why is WP:SONG taking me to WP:WPSONG? The redirect seems correct; it's the exact same as the WP:SONGS redirect. But I keep being swept off to the WP:WPSONG page, which I have no interest in. Is this just a problem with me? Can anyone corroborate? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably has to do with the case - WP:Song will take you to Wikipedia:Song whereas WP:SONG will take you to WikiProject Songs. –xeno^talk 18:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, problem solved. I don't think there's any way to fix this, so I'll just have to remember to use all caps. But definitely cleared up the mystery for me, thank you. - Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One could propose the Wikipedia:Song be moved to Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia or something. –xeno^talk 18:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember to use songs and you'll arrive at the WikiProject as both WP:SONGS and WP:Songs arrive here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SunCreator, I prefer expediency and efficiency, and I naturally type "TAB wp:song ENTER" (in this example) to get where I need to go immediately. Every time, it's a major nuisance to click on the hatnote of that page. I didn't realize there was a caps issue, but honestly, I believe the humor page is titled misleadingly. I've taken Xeno's suggestion and suggested a page move. I have no problems with any other lowercase shortcuts. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno: Done. Thank you for the recommendation. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications, Invite to discussion

Certifications in some countries are for 'shipments' and in others are for ACTUAL Sales. I believe that some improvement/clarificaton is needed at List of music recording sales certifications. To this end I have posted in the Talk there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phrases I hate/phrases that are just plain wrong.

1. Remade. "Songs that are remade", as in My Way (song). Songs cannot be remade, they can be recorded, re-recorded, arranged, re-arranged, sung by different singers, recorded as an instrumental, have new words, have new melody, and a 100 other things but a song cannot be remade.
2. Originally written by... as in Fancy (song). Come on, a song can only be written once. What is usually intended is "written by and originally recorded by..."
3. Please feel free to list any pet hates you have!

If you see any of these, please can you amend them? They just don't make sense. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "remake" is a valid term. It differentiates the song from being a simple "cover". It may not be encyclopedic, though. -Freekee (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I have ever liked the term "cover" either, but then we are using "remake" and "cover" as a piece of WP:OR. But just so you know a "song" comprises of words and melody, the rest is arrangement and performance. If a song is words and melody how can you "remake" it? Remake is a nonsense word in this context, unless you can show it being used in the professional press, i.e. Billboard! --Richhoncho (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that songs are cover versions. Here is an example of the distinction/how terminology might be used: Mariah Carey covered Foreigner's hit single "I Want to Know What Love Is" for her album Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel. The remake features Careys vocals over a re-tooled melody which has a softer sound to the original recording. The re-recorded version failed to reach the chart success of the original and was slated by critics who disliked Carey's interpretation of a classic rock ballad. Her attempt at the re-recording sapped all of the energy from the original version leaving a dull mechanical cover which is not single worth. (note this is not personal opinion it was taken from a review). Hope that helps things out. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you need to look at the official record for 'I Want to Know What Love Is' at at ASCAP, whoever records it, the songwriter remains Mick Jones, because he wrote the words and melody (he might have arranged it too, but that's not the issue) whether performances are by Foreigner, Mariah Carey or anybody else. As I assume Mick Jones recorded a solo version as a demo for the band, it wouldn't be that odd to consider the Foreigner version a cover version too. I wouldn't, because I don't like the term in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The term remake is valid for films but not for songs, IMO. Remix is the normal term for a "reworked" arrangement (or even for a totally new arrangement). Cover is the normal term used for a performance of the song by someone other than the original performer(s)—whether exactly following the original's arrangement or using a different arrangement—e.g. the version of Wonderwall by The Mike Flowers Pops. Some songs sample other songs, of course: Stan samples Thank You, for example, and is neither cover nor remix but a new song altogether. Therefore, Originally written by might make sense where a song samples another song (though "originally" is redundant in this context, even) but Originally performed by might be better in other situations, e.g. for covers and remixes. Hope that all makes sense! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The word remix comes from the studio term "mix" which is the black art of ensuring the whole sound works and includes such mundane acts as panning, equalisation, filtering, expansion etc etc etc. "Remix" means that an existing recording has been played about with, sometimes adding parts of another song, sometimes adding additional/less instrumentation, sometimes just different sounding versions of the same recording- Shania Twain's songs were generally mixed for different markets i.e. different sounding versions of the same performance. Recording a country song as a reggae song, for instance is NOT a remix, but a different arrangement of the same song. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, a song is not just "words and melody", it comprises all of the music and the words, i.e. it includes the harmony and bass line, at least. Some songs are through-composed (classical songs, for example) others are extemporised (jazz, most often). Pop and rock songs are usually half way between these two being laid out in skeleton form with melody, harmony, bass, lyrics and structure all fully formed. The job of the musicians is to interpret the skeleton and create a performance of that song. Hence, covers are simply reworkings by other artists while remixes take the prerecorded voice tracks (melody/lyrics) and lay another arrangement under them. Remixes normally follow the basic bass/harmonic structure defined at the writing stage, albeit sometimes at a different tempo. In both cases, the song is "remade" in some sense; however, all musical performance "remakes" the music being performed since music is, by nature, a dynamic art and needs to be recreated by performance, unlike sculpture which just "is" --Jubilee♫clipman 05:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here of what the industry calls "mechanical rights" and "songwriting rights" if you check Ascap's entry for Stan you will note that Dido, Herman & Eminem are credited as writers, the mechanical rights accrue from the recorded version of both songs i.e. one for Stan AND Thank You, and a separate one for Thank You. i.e. the recording i.e. mechanical rights of the performer. Does somebody want to correct the Stan article, which misses Herman off the credits? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about Yahoo music source and problem with the way it's being used

Wasn't sure if this was the place to ask, but saw the source question immediately above... Is http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/yradish/41097/biggest-selling-singles-since-the-year-2000/ a reliable source? This person doesn't seem to be in the music business, and he is using imprecise language to present these songs. The actual sales (to that time) are not stated; there is nothing that states that this is a ranking, 1—20. There is not even anything that states that these are the biggest sellers, leaving it open to think it may be merely a playlist of songs (allegedly) among those that have sold over 5 million. If there is a list of the 20 biggest-selling singles of the decade, isn't it reasonable to think there would be a list that actually presents itself as such (unlike this playlist) somewhere other than this blog? I'd much prefer a list sourced to Billboard's decade-end issue, or SoundScan, or at least a blogger who cites their sources. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad source several reasons... He's a DJ of some sort. There's no mention of any official charts/sales provider e.g. Official Charts Company or Billboard and its a playlist therefore its not definitive. Although all the songs have over 5million in sales (alleged) there's no evidence of their order being correct. So to conclude no i WOULD never personally allow that to be used in an article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bad source as noted above.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted it again from the article Womanizer (song), where it was being used. Abrazame (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I sussest the inclusion of Damita Jo's song, "Last Dance", which was a response to "Save the Last Dance for Me".

ALSO: "Eve of Destruction" topped the charts at number one for at least a week. When the song was popular in 1965, it was inescapable on AM radio. On the other hand, I, for one, had never even heard of "Dawn of Correction" until I read this article. Therefore, I would quibble with the statement, "both songs were hits" here. And, while I can concur that the description of "Eve of Destruction" as a 'protest song' is apt, I don't know that it was any "wing" - left or right. (Brooklar (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Popular pages

I would like to make a request to create WikiProject Songs Popular pages using http://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/. The current list includes many other WikiProjeccts including WikiProject Albums (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages) and I believe obtaining a list of songs would be of benefit in monitoring highly viewed pages. No action is required by anyone - just to agree it's okay to do it. SunCreator (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me :)—Iknow23 (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Request submitted. SunCreator (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a really good idea! Candyo32 (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur, it would be a useful tool to see where our priorities should lie. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of first arrive likely first fews days of April. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs/Popular_pages Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope of WP:SONGS?

As part of the task of tagging song articles it's brought up the issue of the scope of WP:SONGS

• Are Discographies within the scope of WP:Songs?
• Are Albums within the scope of WP:Songs?

I've searched around for previous discussion on this but have so far drawn a blank. Feedback would be welcome. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Both these would seem to duplicate the scope of the Albums sister project. –xeno^talk 16:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It would ,although a bit of relevant duplication is no real issue. Mind you I'm definitely not saying tag all the albums or anything daft like that, but there are times of real overlap for example 2nd (song). Some discographies have song categories on them, Blake Shelton discography has Category:Blake Shelton songs, Clint Black discography as Category:Clint Black songs so I'm wondering what to do with these and perhaps many others. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

From your comment here,do you think that no albums should be project tagged as a song? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be album articles with significant discussion of songs (i.e. songs or singles that don't warrant their own article). In this case, the Songs template would be appropriate. –xeno^talk 23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be there are albums that should be tagged for the songs project, but I don't think it should be done automatically, otherwise we just trample all over the album project. There may be songs titles that are only redirects to albums, should they be listed? I think that the discographies, which generally include information on song releases, should be part of the project and the album project will have to learn to share. IMO, not too concerned if there is dissent. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the question of discographies, one issue is that most discographies are not in any song categories so even if the bot was to run it would only be a small percentage what would be included. So we've have to specifically include discographies categories to get songs tagged for them. How about we take the same approach to discographies as you recommend to albums, in that we don't tag them with a bot but tag them manually if required? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for songs to albums(or artists) is a good point, because there seems to be so many of them. I will check what happens with that before another bot run. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a clear view painted here. Is there anymore comments. So we can get a consensus? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with your suggestions, albums and discographies added manually, I think the "lists of songs written by foo" should be added. I have listed manually Category:Songs by songwriter only because it gave me a chance to review, but maybe the bot can handle any new entries. I'll leave re-directs for you to ascertain. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Category 'Songs written by foo' are all included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs/Categories this also includes categories 'Songs by writer/lyricist/producer', 'Lists of songs', 'Lists of songs by authors or performers' etc where the articles 'list of songs written by foo' are normally found. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Songs to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Page is here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a new "subpages" section to the project page with a link to the popular pages subpage so people can easily find it. – IbLeo^(talk) 16:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Added a watchlist option. Watch the 1500 most popular song pages! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Youtube videos in external links

Whats the current train of thought on placing youtube music videos on song articles External links sections? User:MatthewGoodfan101 has added them to almost all System of a Down singles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a template for the inclusion of YouTube videos; {{YouTube}} if I'm not mistaken. My thoughts on the matter are that it is fine so long as the videos in question have been uploaded by a) the band/singer, b) the record company, or c) Vevo. Videos uploaded by fans or people who are otherwise not affiliated with the band/singer in question should not be uploaded. I would say that Universal Music Group, Mercury Records, and Vevo can be used, as can official accounts such as those belonging to U2 and Bryan Adams. These accounts should be okay since they either own the videos or have the rights to upload them. I'm not sure if Interscope or Island have YouTube accounts; people would have to check for other singer/band accounts. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Island Records have [1]. Interscope Records have [2]. Ministry of Sound have [3][4][5]. Warner Bros. Records [6]. Parlophone have [7] etc. SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe all of these are worth putting in a new section on the Project Page? Might make it easier for people to find what they're looking for in the future. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Wiki YouTube links must be from OFFICIAL sources ONLY with any others to be removed.
SUPPORT MelicansMatkin's suggestion to show links to OFFICIAL Record label YouTube/VEVO channels on the Project page.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also support listing of official sources assuming not too many and all are listed. An imcomplete list would be misleading. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's one I came across: The Official Warner Bros. Records YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/warnerbrosrecords
When you visit it though it says, Warner Bros. + Reprise Records. So please also list "Reprise Records (See Warner Brothers)"
Maybe we can contribute links here that can be 'collected up' and then added to a new section on the Project page?—Iknow23 (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just the record labels, or for bands and singers as well? If it's the latter, it may get overly long and/or complicated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think just Record labels and Distributors like UMG. Otherwise, like you indicate it would get too unwieldy.I made the text bold in the one above for ease in finding it later :)—Iknow23 (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A list of artists channels would be very long. Start with the labels and see how well that goes. SunCreator (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and added them; it's my first time making any sort of contribution to a guideline/policy/whatever, so please refine it in any way that you can if it looks or reads awkwardly! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work, but your bit about lyrics is at odds with WP guidance on quoting lyrics and poetry, I'll let you re-write, if not I will re-write tomorrow. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add anything about lyrics; that wording was already present. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, assumptions should not be seen at WP! However, I have now copied (with a little pruning/rewording) the relevant bit regarding lyrics. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no worries; it brought up a part that needed an update! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Like it :) Mostly just put in alpha order.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. If there are any that we've missed, we can add them quickly enough now. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot missing, I'd guess a hundred or more. There seems to be a VEVO channel for many, many of artists. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Artist-wise, absolutely; but we discussed above that listing all of the individual artist channels might end being too "unwieldy". U2, for instance, has both a Vevo channel and their own official channel, as does Bryan Adams, and likely many other artists. The general Vevo channel (which is linked) is probably all we really need in terms of individual artists; further searches can be branched out from there, like with any of the record labels. To clarify, my comment above was in regards specifically to major record labels/distributors. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad, forgot we are not going to list artists. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Universal seem to have a music channels for each country. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup, Songs with music by Mylène Farmer

Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup and Category:Songs with music by Mylène Farmer, which are under the purview of this WikiProject, are being considereding for merging at Categories for discussion. Both nominations have been open for more than two weeks and were recently relisted, so constructive participation would be highly appreciated.

If you would like to participate in the discussions, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entries (here and here) on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

www.songfacts.com

There have been recent discussions regarding the use of www.songfacts.com as a source and in particular with reference to it being added by a small group of single purpose accounts who may be contributors to the site. The most active discussion, with links to others is at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Songfacts.com. The site is heavily linked to articles in your project so before any efforts are made to remove them it seems sensible to ask you. Thanks. Smartse (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any opinions on this? Smartse (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article on Music recording sales certification

I'm not a member of this project, but as a member of the Albums Project I noticed that someone recently added the article Music recording sales certification to the Songs Project. Given the topic of that article, I'm not sure if adding it to the Songs Project is appropriate and I wonder how it would be assessed. But on the other hand it might be useful as background info for project work. This is just FYI - take action or no action as you see fit. Cheers, DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I add the WikiProjects tags as recording sales certification is something that is relevant to songs. It's link directly from {{infobox single}} whenever the 'Certification' is used, so it's used on perhaps many thousands of song articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify... it's information that is certainly relevant to songs, but the article in question is not about a song itself. That's my concern. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither is Song, Single (music), Anthem etc, but they are all part of songs. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One could also argue that it is not specifically about discographies, albums or songs, also it should be pointed out that WP is NOT about "ownership." Time might be better spent editing the article, which contradicts itself, that arguing over which project(s) it "belongs" to! --Richhoncho (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V request for Category:Jazz compositions etc.

Hello, I am proposing/requesting that Xenobot Mk V would tag and auto-assess the articles in Category:Jazz compositions and its subcategories. I have prepared a list (User:Gyrofrog/jazzcat songs‎) of these subcategories for the 'bot to use (rather than having it automatically go through all of them itself). I would like for it to add the {{WikiProject Songs}} template, in addition to {{Jazz-music-project}} (I have already brought up the latter at WP:JAZZ regarding the Category:Jazz articles in general). Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that it might be best to do only the Jazz tagging as Song tagging is already in seperate request see section up above. Also Song tagging it trying to be more precise and not tag sister projects for example Glenn Miller discography is in Jazz project but Song scope discussion above was of the view that tagging Discographies as Songs was perhaps unnessasary. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and made the request to be only within the scope of WP:JAZZ (now complete). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Where can i request the assessment of song articles?

As the header above states? =) Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

List them here. I'll do a quick assessment. You could even do it yourself as anyone can do an assessment for Stub/Start/C or B-Class on the quality scale. Articles of GA and above quality want a formal review submit them to WP:GAN in the WP:GAN#MUS section. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in doing assessment here is a list of which I'm currently on 133 out of 956 articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought you aren't allowed to do articles which you've contributed much too? (i have have worked on a few of the ones that need doing you see..)Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

While it's conceivable that a WikiProject may stipulate that I don't know of any that do. WP:MILHIST arguable the most structured WikiProject, have the assessment open to anyone including none members(see FAQ 4). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Michael Jackson song)

Further input here from outsiders would be appreciated by all involved in the discussion. Regards, Pyrrhus16 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For Wiki, it's a swing and a miss on the song Your Precious Love.

You say it was Marvin Gaye? He was probably a baby when Jerry the "Ice Man" Butler put that song out in 1958.

Mick Miller mickmiller@q.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.13.4 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Butler's 'For Your Precious Love' and Gaye's 'Your Precious Love' are different songs --Richhoncho (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Mary J Blige - Each Tear

I know this is not necessarily the best place for this discussion but there's been a lack of response at WP:NFCC. Please can you comment on the status of single covers at Talk:Each Tear. The essential issue is the that album version of the song is released nowhere but 4 different versions are being released worldwide each with a different cover. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Important information about singles please comment

there is an important change to rules being discussed Bonus tracks that were released as singles. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxen Song + Single: merge redux

I'd again like to propose the merger of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} (see past discussion). The templates are often used interchangeably, and this is long overdue. Please discuss at (arbitrary choice) Template talk:Infobox single#Infoboxen Song + Single: merge redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

i don't want to take you off on a tangent, but a similar thing is being done with templates. of the 110 templates dedicated specifically for singles (not the artist themselves), 8 are called "songs". couldn't a bot be created to change all "songs" to "singles", then mention this on the project page for future singles templates? Ivansevil (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to navboxes? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Right Round genre war

There is currently a disagreement occurring on the talk page of this article over what genres it belongs to, with both sides apparently having sources. If anyone else would care to contribute to the conversation, it would be helpful. Thanks. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of the project and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class from other projects (see here for further details).

If there are any questions or objections regarding this process, please make them known. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are none.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A Song Category list has been created for this task Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs/Categories (it's big!) and contains all the categories derived from Category:Songs(minus a few in error about albums found). Let me know if there is anything in the list that is not pertaining to WP:SONGS likewise for anything missing. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Task running... If there are any issues, post to user talk:Xenobot Mk V and it will stop running. –xeno^talk 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot to auto-assess articles based on their pagesize

After a discussion with SunCreator [17], Xenobot Mk V is going to trial a new "auto-assess via pagesize" heuristic for this project whereby "Up to 1899 bytes=Stub, 1900 to 7999 bytes=Start, over 8000 bytes=C class, any higher rating require human input. " If there are any comments or objections to this, please make them known - otherwise this second phase of the bot task will commence in 72 hours. Note this is only for newly tagged or unassessed articles, articles with class ratings in placed will not be touched. –xeno^talk 13:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This will fully clear your unassessed category: 4792 stubs [18]; 8477 start class [19]; and 963 C class [20]. –xeno^talk 04:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly object. I am not involved in this project, but I am concerned that bot-driven assessment-by-size on this or any project ignores the fact that the WP 1.0 quality scale relates to quality as well as to size. For example, a start-class article should provide enough sources to establish verifiability ... but the bot appears to entirely ignore any quality issues. AFAICS, an article which consisted of "This song is shite!!!!!!!!" repeated enough times to exceed 8000 bytes would be rated by the bot as C-class.
  IMO the value of the assessment system consists solely in it recording the results of a human assessment of the quality of an article. Xeno's proposal will seriously degrade the usefulness of the assessment system, by rating several thousand articles without reference to quality. If articles have not been assessed, then they have not been assessed, and a bot should not be used obliterate the evidence of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  Just for the record, this is not my proposal, I'm merely a humble bot operator fulfilling a request that started with this question. If this task runs, the articles would be included in Category:Automatically assessed song articles and would carry the note auto=size. Your point about the start and C-class ratings is a good one. When I proposed assessment by size, I was really only suggesting to rate as stub based on small size. What are your thoughts on that? –xeno^talk 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry if this came across as a personal criticism: I had intended to comment on the proposal (which seemed to have arisen out of discussions) without trying to attribute "blame" to any editor. I see now how the penultimate sentence of my comment does appear to point a finger, and I'm sorry for that.

  I have just been looking again at the stub-class criteria: "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category." I interpret this as meaning that all short articles are stubs, but some longer ones may also be stubs if other conditions apply.

  So I think that in principle it looks OK to auto-assess as stub any article below a certain threshold, provide the auto= parameter is also used (as you correctly propose to do). I would suggest checking whether 1500 is an accepted upper bound. (No need to wait for my response to whatever you conclude on that point).

  However, as above I do still thank auto-assessing as start-class or C-class is a bad idea, and am glad to see that aspect of the idea appears to off the menu :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I should properly have outlined the whole process here, as this bot run is only a part, but so far no one had shown much interest and my time is restricted(currently on wikibreak) so I've put it off. I'll be back soon when time allow to expand the situation. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - whatever would it achieve, and how many articles would simply be categorized incorrectly as a result? Reading the cited discussion sheds no light on either question. Shouldn't User:Xeno's comment in that discussion, "It is difficult to peg down a 'size range' for a stub, per WP:CL-RULE", be heeded? PL290 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Good questions:

1. What would it achieve? - What it would achieve is getting the assessment of WP:SONGS into a manageable state and likely complete human assessment of all sizable articles.
2. Many articles would simply be categorized incorrectly as a result? - Yes, many will end up in the start class. They are the ones that are there already or are currently unassessed. Whether being unassessed or incorrectly in the start and marked a a bot assessed both have drawbacks. I would claim the former situation of so many being unassessed is much more problematic then the latter with start class errors, although the question is not clear cut.
3. Shouldn't WP:CL-RULE be heeded? Yes it should be, and it is. There are many aspects but three are being looked at which is partly leading to the continued delay in starting this project by the way. Firstly, the scope of this bot run is to focus on Songs and not articles by sister projects, this is something that is a first for Xenobot I believe. All Discographies and all albums wouldn't be auto-assessed with a bot in part because CL-rule crops up, it will instead focus on the core song articles. Secondly, there are some articles that are included into WP:SONGS that aren't songs - article such as National anthem, A-side and B-side, Cover version I have been checking such articles recently to ensure they have a rating already. If you check the talk page history on those pages you will note that I have given them a rating in the last few days. Thirdly, once the bot has run I will do a check of the most important songs i.e. mainly those listed in (RS link) in The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time because the reason that CL-rule comes into question with it's London example is that it does not consider importance. Importance will be consider here by the manual check. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 08:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The above reply raises further questions:

• Please explain how running a bot will "likely complete human assessment of all sizable articles."
• What do you see as the purpose of the "unassessed" status?
• In what way is it problematic that "so many articles are unassessed"? PL290 (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the bot in this case. WP:CL-RULE is referring to comparing ALL articles, whereas this bot run will only assess song articles and can be adjusted accordingly, certainly some will be assessed wrongly, but that would happen if humans did it, anyway. Unless we have volunteers to assess 15,000 plus articles quickly and accurately I don't think there's an alternative. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you got those size numbers from somewhere. Here is some info about average page sizes by quality, based on the entire database of assessed articles.

Size in bytes by page quality
Quality	1st quartile	Median	3rd quartile
Stub	1134	1732	2939
Start	3205	5195	8420

So the cutoffs suggested above seem a little low to me. One reason stubsa re so big is that infoboxes take up a lot of space in wikitext even if they are very small in the article. I would guess a lot of songs stubs have infoboxes.

I would suggest using a mixed system where you take into account both size of the page and the number of level 2 section headers. But if you are going on size alone, bumping up the limits might be reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the data. It will certainly help SunCreator in determining the cutoffs. However it still does not address BrownHairedGirl's concern. I suppose the bot could be instructed to only confer a "start" rating if there were 1 (or more) "<ref" on the article, but that still doesn't account for the quality of the ref in terms of verifiability. –xeno^talk 16:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's up to the project to decide. I just wanted to point out that the numeric size cutoffs seemed a little low to me. One option would be to use the bot to make a count of how many C-class articles there would be, and check just those by hand if there aren't too many. But the project is pretty much free to rate the articles however it wants, in the end, apart from GA and FA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that's necessarily true. While they could declare themselves not part of WP 1.0 assessment scheme and rate however they want, currently WP Songs says they use the WP 1.0 assessment scale. –xeno^talk 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's still in the spirit of WP 1.0 assessment scale so I don't see an issue, we are talking of keeping within but using a bot to approximate as best we can. Technically any WikiProject that has used a bot has pushed over the line of the WP 1.0 assessment scale, but I doubt you'd find anyone that thinks it means they are no longer part of it. Also looking at WP 1.0 assessment advice on stubs which says adding content is a priority surely does not go down well with WP:BIOG - think of unreferenced BLP's, where I think we can agree these days adding sources is the priority. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is great data CBM! Where did it come from? It's right in line with what I had estimated. Editors familiar with checking assessments will likely know there are a great deal of articles out there not assessed anytime recently and therefore are under-rated and those bring the Median size up. Such example with Start-class ratings are Singles Collection(32K), Dress You Up(28K), Radar (song)(28K) and Moment of Surrender(23K), all of which are currently GA-nominated(!) just to highlight what a shambled the current ratings are in. I was being conservative with using a figure higher then the median, but don't have an issue with being more so if that is what other require. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP 1.0 bot has a database of every article rating. I just did a query to get the sizes and ratings and then ran the data through a statistics program. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• As an outsider to this project I'll make a comment and the project members can use it as you see fit. I think that auto assessing C class articles by a bot is simply wrong. At C class you really need to read the article to see if it qualifies. Auto assessing as a stub is fine, if you under assess nothing is really harmed. Start class is not as clear cut. Would the bot be smart enough to detect a list article and classify it correctly? I suspect that many list articles would be in the Start class size range. I'll add that I have been working on assessments for 2 projects to deal with unassessed articles. When I started to address the backlog, it was a challenge. But I can say that the size of the article can be misleading since some large articles are clearly start class and some small ones are c class. Doing this manually takes time. For bio articles, I found that in many cases, the auto stub assessment was wrong. Most likely since information was added after the bot ran. I also discovered that assessments by other projects including bio, were overinflated in many cases. So doing an auto assessment by stealing matching the assessment from another project, you may compound the errors that exist and don't forget that not every project's assessment for meeting C level would be the same. If you want me to reply to something here, drop a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with assessing Stub-class based on automated heuristics (I'd say limited level of wikification would also qualify), but Start-Class is pushing it and C-Class is over the line, IMO. Any article which lacks adequate sources is Start-Class, however long. For Start-Class and above, human judgement really is required. Happy‑melon 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I agree that C-class is over the line. But how do you feel about the Start-class being done with automated heuristics and then the C-class being humanly checked. This is the intention here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

C-class

Well to keep this short(it is Easter Sunday after all) and to hopefully end continuing mis-understanding. The idea here of the C-class split is to section out the potentially better articles; my estimate is of around 500963 such articles from the 15000+ unassessed articles presently availble. Those 500963 articles would then be manually reassessed, they need to be re-assessed anyway, because some maybe B-Class or GA candidates. Also a good deal of overlap will exist with high importance. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Some data: out of the 963 C-class preview noted above, 34 do not contain a ref tag, while 856 contain at least 3 (noting it could be the same source three times, mind-you). –xeno^talk 03:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • O goosh! Did you do that with the bot or something like AWB? Maybe some more clever checking can be worked into the bot here and 963 is what exactly? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • AWB's database scanner on Special:Export for the unassessed songs category. 963 is the number I originally gave above indicating the number articles meeting the C-class criteria as originally proposed. –xeno^talk 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Most excellent. I missed your posting of those links before, sorry. So AWB can create a list based on article size. Well that means the bot doesn't actually have to C-class tag those then, because I would work manually from a list of the biggest of the articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding assessing as stub based on pagesize of article

To get this moving along, can we please take a straw poll on whether Xenobot should auto-assess as stub any of the 15,000+ unassessed articles that are below 2500 bytes? –xeno^talk 14:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Support --Richhoncho (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support stub autoassessment only, for all the reasons espoused. Happy‑melon 20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Assessing articles is a long and dull task. If a bot can do some of it that would be worth it in terms of time saved for more useful duties. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support stub autoassessment only, as discussed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

*Oppose - the existence of unassessed articles is a fact of life, and nothing is achieved by calling them anything else. If assessment planning would be assisted by a statistical report identifying articles in certain size groups, the aim of the automated process should simply be to produce that report. PL290 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposition now sruck--see Last call below. PL290 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I think the argument above that we should not assess based on pagesize higher than stub is compelling, as even start-class requires the article "provide enough sources to establish verifiability". Thus, at this time, only stub assessments are proposed. Due to some helpful changes in WPBannerMeta, these will be sorted under "L" (for length) in the automatically-assessed category. –xeno^talk 14:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• FYI Jazz is currently running an auto-stub by length task, using 2500 bytes. –xeno^talk 17:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• While this discussion is still running it might be worth adding everything from Category:Redirects from songs, this will also move some from the unassessed list as well. I am sure nobody could possibly object to redirects being assessed as redirects. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good idea, there are 173 such articles. –xeno^talk 17:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also (I forgot to mention this), could this be extended to other WikiProjects? WP:WikiProject Trains for example has a long list of unassessed articles, and so do many others. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  Any other projects - having discussed and agreed on the autoassessment methods - may feel free to file a request at User:Xenobot/R. –xeno^talk 12:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Last call for alcohol votes! I think 4 to 1 is a consensus to proceed, no? While I understand PL290's comment, I offer up the notion that if a bot is able to go through the unassessed category separating the "wheat" from the "chaff", as it were, it will make it easier on assessors to identify the stuff that requires human judgment (i.e. probably above stub class). Afterward, they can go through the automatically assessed category to look at the stubs-by-length along with the auto-stubbed and inherited classes. –xeno^talk 14:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, if the bot does the assessing we can all get down the pub earlier :) --Richhoncho (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Xeno's point "it will make it easier on assessors to identify the stuff that requires human judgment", as I've already pointed out, that can be achieved by producing stats, so it's not a valid justification. However, since we are only talking about stubs here, I have less opposition to the automation than I would for any higher rating. Given the lack of any other support for my "purist" view of the matter, I will accept the majority view and have now struck my oppose. PL290 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then it would still require some poor sap to manually go through all the very small articles and tag as "stub" lest they sit, forevermore, in the unassessed category. I guess the real question is: does the project care about having so many unassessed articles? Some do =) –xeno^talk 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

True; but will the project feel it has any fewer unassessed articles simply by automatically changing their status? As I said before, what is the point of the "unassessed" rating? Perhaps if it were possible to make "stub" the lowest rating, the issue would go away. Anyway, the real issue would be if any higher ratings were automated, which, thankfully, is no longer propsed. PL290 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant that this really just moves things from unassessed to automatically assessed by length =) –xeno^talk 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Task running... –xeno^talk 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, shouldn't the bot also add the {{song-stub}} template to the article? E.g. I Can't Read which was just auto-assessed by your bot. – IbLeo^(talk) 06:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, no- the bot doesn't have approval to do that. An actual honest-to-goodness stub template on the article should really be done by a human hand or use a much lower threshold than we have used here. Whereas it is an assessment in the banner, we have the note generated by "auto=length"; a {{stub}} template has no such counterpart. –xeno^talk 12:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Task complete. 7084 edits (5000 +2084). Let me know if you notice any issues. –xeno^talk 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

White Cliffs of Dover , lyrics

Referring to the third paragraph of the Wikipedia entry, where it says that "there are no bluebirds in Britain", I would like to suggest that the author of the lyrics may have alluded to the "Air Force blue", the blueish-gray color associated with (among others) the Royal Air Force. 79.245.97.114 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's quite possible, but without a source it would be original research which is banned on Wikipedia. Sorry. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Music Notability

Hello, I'm opening a discussion about the refinement and clarification of notability criteria. your opinion here would be appreciated. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One Mic

Assessment, anyone? Dan56 (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I made some suggestions on the articles talk page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Single" as a dab

Please assist Some articles erroneously use "single" as a disambiguator rather than "song" as proscribed by WP:MUSIC, but other articles are about singles that have a name other than the name of the title track--e.g. Avengers (single). What should be done in these cases? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC and WP:MOS make clear that articles about musical releases are either about SONGS or ALBUMS but never singles. The content might focus on a single release but at the end of the day the object is a song. Song should always be used as the DAB.

comment i see what you mean with the "Avengers" case. There is no sources in that article and i suspect that the release has no proper name since the band is also called the Avengers. I would either name it 'Avengers (recording)' or name it "Paint it Black" since this is the A-side.Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Single release: iTunes vs Amazon vs Artist (what was confirmed or what now appears?)

Ok here's the issue with Ride (Ciara song).

• The artist and amazon confirmed the single's release date as April 27:
  • American Idol

• However the sources now show different things:
  • Amazon before the release said april 26 but now it shows april 27 Amazon
  • iTunes did NOT show the song until after April 27 but now shows the song as being released april 19 iTunes

So what should we do about the release date? –Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In my view, given the nature of the music industry dates are subject to change prior to an event(such as a song release) so WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. The Amazon change/correction of the date from 26 April to 27 April doesn't surprise me and is not uncommon. On iTunes Ride has currently 125 reviews most of them dated 27 April, none before that date. I take it therefore the song wasn't available on iTunes prior to 27 April. I'm not sure why iTunes have this date error, but for Wikipedia purpose I'd be using the 27 April date. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tips

Hello guys..Moxy here the guy that does the portals...We have made a Tip/guidelines section to help navigate Wikis vast rules!! Pls if y0u like add this to your project page if it apply to you guys here!!..Moxy (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

?	Use common sense. Ultimately, assume good faith on the part of others, be bold in editing because perfection is not required. See Wikipedia:Editing policy for more information. Before starting a new article! - Notability is a concern that must be adhered to. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information. Need help starting a new article? See Wikipedia:Article wizard it will help you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
I.	Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include a ==References== section listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you used to write the article. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:References for more information.
II.	Use proper spelling and grammar. This is a very important aspect of an article. There is helpful guidelines in regards to styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) for more information.
III.	Use footnotes. Take advantage of the footnote ability Wikipedia has, instead of including html links inside the context include them as footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use them.
IV.	Write a good lead. Be sure to write a lead that concisely summarizes the entire article into one or two paragraphs, which make sense to someone who may know nothing about the subjects in question. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more information.
V.	Stay on topic. Many articles are criticized for length; sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this. See Wikipedia:The perfect article for more information.
VI.	Keep it simple. Remember that the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition. Although you should use a broad vocabulary of regular, non-technical terms, do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary.
VII.	Use images if possible. Images enhance articles greatly, but only use them when they are necessary, and ensure that their copyright status has been specified and we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Images

• Good start, but wouldn't it be easier to use as a subst'd template? Or have I missed something? Rodhullandemu 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes if you think a better format is needed pls do so..and add whatever you guys think is best. This is the first version...I --i mean we at the Canada Music Wikiproject just made this recently as there has been MANY MANY MANY newbies saying the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD page is overwhelming, so i just though this might help those new people, so we keept it VERY simple. We have added it to the main Music Project page and sub country pages and the MJ project etc... are using it now!!..Moxy (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new sections to songs

Sometimes my English is so bad that I have a hard time understanding what the song is about. Without copying the lyrics, a summary of the song would be useful. For example, mentioning that the song is about drug abuse of a friend or teen age pregnancy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That should automatically be mentioned in the lead section. For example: "The song's lyrics speak about the death of one's spouse". Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite a mess

there seem to be several articles related to the Nickelback song entitled "Fly. Fly - Nickelback song, Fly (Nickelbac), and Fly (Nickelback). They should all be merged to Fly (Nickelback) however, an editor has been deleting content and adding redirects to Fly - Nickelback song. I believe that format is non-standard. It may require an admin to deal with. I just noticed the mess because the editor also removed information from another article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Fly - Nickelback song is not a standard dab. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I untangled the history, but the final result was a redirect, anyway, as the song doesn't make it past WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"If This Is Love" audio sample and live performance screenshot

Hi, I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to ask for help but I'm busy re-constructing the article "If This Is Love" at the moment. I'm aiming to elevate it to good article status but need some outside help from other users to add an audio sample of the song to the article as well as a screenshot of The Saturdays performing "If This Is Love" live. Thank you so much! x Jazminerocks 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable lyrics website to source lyrics?

If I want to add an external link at the external link section of a song article having to do with the song's lyrics, which website can I use that is reliable and allowed on Wikipedia other than the website of the artist who performs the song? -- Jazminerocks 09:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

MTV are a good source to use, for example[21] --JD554 (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Any site that is used for quoting lyrics should be authorised by the songwriters/copyright holders (which are not necessarily the performers). The link given above via MTV is for Lyricsmode which is NOT an authorised site. Generally speaking I would rely on record companies, publishing companies, songwriters and bands, together with any site who acknowldge the owners of the copyright (i.e. the right to copy the lyrics). --Richhoncho (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought Lyricsmode were part of MTV Networks as they have their logo on their website, but it links to a notice that says they are nothing to do with MTV Networks, very misleading. So, no, I agree they are a good site to use. --JD554 (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaination, this site has a notice saying 'Copyright. All lyrics are the property of their owners and may only be used for educational purposes only, etc [22] Am I allowed to externally link to this website? --Jazminerocks (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You should only link to sites which authorised to reprint the lyrics. So of you are asking about Lyricsmode or elyricsworld, the answer is no. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

PS The bit about for educational purposes doesn't work (otherwise WP could have all the lyrics here too!). The site is trying an misconstrued get out clause so they don't have to pay royalties. If they were serious they would acknowledge the copyright holders. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Singlechart template

I've started a discussion about {{singlechart}} at WT:Record charts#Chart template formats. I'd like to resolve the issues that keep people from using it. Your participation is welcomed.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Should producers credited for additional production in a song be credited under producers in infobox

Hi, I'm a bit confused as to whether a producer who performed additional production and not production should be credited as a producer in the infobox of a song article. Clarification would be highly appreciated. --Jazminerocks(talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Production credits are a bit hit and miss. A friend of mine has "produced" a number of albums, but AMG only credit him for an album he didn't do! Another acquaintance of mine produced a grammy-nominated album, but his name is nowhere to be found on the album or associated with the album, a famous musician/(producer!) gets the credit. This doesn't answer your question save to tell you this editor finds producer credits suspect at the best of times. Without knowing which song you are referring to I guess I would suggest Producer: XYZ (with additional production by ABC), alternatively you could explain it all in the text. As I know you are thinking about the issue I am sure you will make the right decision in my book. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

bon jovi

a lot of the first album stuff missing, i think we should start a bon jovi project group for these problem

Smithy5000 10:07 3rd June —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithy5000 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lee DeWyze's cover of "Beautiful Day"

There is a discussion at Talk:Beautiful Day#Lee DeWyze's American Idol cover on whether the cover of "Beautiful Day" by Lee DeWyze should receive its own section in the article. Any comments would be appreciated, Aspects (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Songs by country categorization

Hello, I'm coming here to the project today for a few reasons. Although I know discussions concerning categories aren't exactly a popular thing among users, I've come here here to make a proposal regarding Category:Songs by country, similar to the structure given to Category:Albums by artist nationality (see discussion at WT:ALBUMS and the subsequent CFD nomination). I decided to start a discussion here as it's far more complex than Category:Albums by artist nationality was, and I would rather this process be well thought out to give the community more than enough time to voice their opinion and concerns of my proposal.

First, I'd like to give some background regarding the nomination regarding the albums categories. Basically, I made the proposal to rename all the categories and subcategories of Category:Albums by artist to use the Albums by Fooian artist, as opposed to its former scheme, Fooian albums. Essentially, the artists are the subjects that are being defined by nationality, not the albums themselves. With ensuing discussion at WT:ALBUMS, consensus agreed with the renamed proposals, and do did the CFD participants (linked above). Now, categories follow the Category:Albums by American artists scheme, as opposed to Category:American albums.

Now, I've come to suggest the same proposal for Category:Songs by country; to rename its categories and subcategories using the Songs by Fooian artists naming convention, instead of the Fooian songs convention. However, as I stated above, this is far more complex for this set of categories than it was for the album categories. Reason being, there are songs which are in fact about the country at hand. For example, Milli Surood is the national anthem of Afghanistan, "The Hockey Theme" is the theme song for Canadian hockey teams, etc. These songs can not be categorized under Songs by Fooian artists, as they are not songs by one specific recording artist or band, but songs about or related to the country/region. So, I'm not quite sure how these categories should be handled. There are a few options that I will list below:

Option A

• Propose renaming Category:Songs by country to Category:Songs by artist nationality at WP:CFD, while pointing out the issue above.
• Propose renaming all of the subcategories from Fooians songs to Songs by Fooian artists.
• If the renames succeeds, review the category contents and move pages not fitting of the Songs by Fooian artists scheme. This would require recreating Category:Songs by country (alternatively, it can be created as Category:Songs of countries) and recreate respective categories, using the Fooian songs scheme (alternatively, they can be created as Songs of Foo).¹

Option B

• Propose renaming some the subcategories from Fooians songs to Songs by Fooian artists that strictly fit the latter's contents.
• If the selected renames succeed, remove Category:Songs by country, create Category:Songs by artist nationality and swap the categories (for example, if Category:American songs gets renamed to Category:Songs by American artists, we would remove Category:Songs by country and add Category:Songs by artist nationality to that category).
• As for the ones that aren't renamed (the ones that remain Fooian songs), we create the corresponding Songs by Fooian artist where needed and swap Fooian songs with Songs by Fooian artists. These manually created categories should not empty out the untouched Fooian songs as a result; that's why they aren't being renamed, because they have a combination of both Fooian songs and Songs by Fooian artists type articles.

Option C

• No renaming will take place.
• Create Category:Songs by artist nationality and its subcategories where needed using the Songs by Fooian artists scheme and categorize pages accordingly. Swap Fooian songs with the newly created Songs by Fooian artists where applicable.

¹ indicates that, although renaming Category:Songs by country to Category:Songs of countries and renaming Fooian songs to Songs of Foo (where Songs by Fooian artists does not apply) is an alternative, we should consider this an option that can be applied to all three proposals.

Thoughts? — ξ^xplicit 06:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lonesome Road

In looking up details of the song "Lonesome Road," I came across a reference to "Art Van Damm" with no hypertext link. The correct spelling is "Art Van Damme" and it should link to the corresponding wiki page. I tried to edit this myself, but when I clicked on "edit" and did a search for "van damm" nothing came up! Maybe somebody else can take care of this.

thank you,

65.117.212.177 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Paul Potyen

Birth Name & Registered Name vs Stage Name

There is an important discussion about the subject being opened here. Your opinion is welcome at the following discussion. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Promo single?

What's the difference between a promo single and a single? I've seen another editor argue that promo singles should be removed from Wikipedia, and though I didn't participate in the discussion, I came across "Tumble in the Rough" and the article seems kind of flimsy to me, even for a stub. I'm not a deletionist, but should this one be tagged AfD? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, a promo single is one that is usually released to just radio stations for airplay, whereas a single is one which can be purchased by the public. --JD554 (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah neato. I'd forgotten that I even own a couple of these, and I always thought I was being "bad" by buying them off eBay. The article has a neat paragraph on it about "not for resale" being legally invalid. Anyway, so I suppose articles on promo singles should be taken on a case-by-case basis, whether they're notable enough or not for inclusion (just like anything else). Thanks for the link! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant CfD and a possible change to the scheme for categorizing single covers

Please see here. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Singles cover art

I hate to be a deletionist, but I just came across a song where the infobox album cover art was this file here: File:Fly_away_john_denver.png, which is not cover art, but merely someone's snapshot of a vinyl record. Can I put this image up for FfD? I don't see how fair-use justifies the use of a record label (the literal label) design, colors, and corporate logo artwork (in this case, RCA) in an infobox. If the article were discussing the actual record and differences that may pertain to collectibles or something similar, then I don't think there would be a problem. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Walks

Does anyone have a subscription to Billboard.biz? I need references from it to fix dead links in Jesus Walks. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

Confusing entry Currently, Wikipedia:SONG#Categories reads in part "Song articles should be placed into... a subcategory of Category:Songs by year and (a subcategory of Category:Singles by year for singles)." The punctuation and wording of this is confusing. Generally, articles are not to be placed in a category and its subcategories. I.e. in this case, it would not be appropriate for (e.g.) Radio Free Europe (song) to be in both Category:1981 songs and Category:1981 singles, as the latter is a child of the former. Is WP:SONGS instructing users to place song articles in both "X songs" and "X singles" when "X" is the same year? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is part of a discussion I have been having with Justin on his talkpage. Cutting to the chase, Justin thinks "song" and "single" are synonymous. Whereas I say a song is not necessarily a single and there are examples of singles not being songs (i.e. speeches released in 45 format etc). It should also be pointed out that Category:1995 songs states “Songs written or first produced in 1995” while Category:1995 singles states “Articles about songs issued as singles, (phonorecords and Compact Discs) which were released in the year 1995.” Other years are defined similarly. This means, quite clearly, that one category is about the creation and the other about the marketing of a song. Therefore I suggest that Justin’s assumption they are part of the same category tree is misleading. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Richhoncho. Song and Single are not the same thing, and I don't think Category:1981 singles should be a child of Category:1981 songs. Take Jealous Guy, for example: a 1981 single, but a 1971 song. Which reminds me, time we did something about the infoboxes. I haven't had a chance since the discussion where it emerged that a Song Release infobox/sub-box would meet a need. If anyone else feels inspired to take that further, go for it. PL290 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In view of Justin's comment that the wording is unclear I think the project should be clarified. I will do this in a week or so's time providing nobody comes up with a good reason why it should not be done or it is proven there is no concensus. Perhaps we should also split the categories as they are no longer parent and child so this discussion doesn't happen again. Any comments? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Remove Category:Songs as a parent to Category:Singles and the same for their respective sub-cats. While most singles are songs, it's surely not a definition of what a single is. It will be a heck of a task to do. First, you'll have to look for all song articles that are categorized under a Category:Singles by year sub-cat but not in any Category:Songs by year sub-cat. Then for those articles, you'd have to add the appropriate song year category. Then, of course, you'd probably want to set up a similar conventions for Category:Instrumentals by year, so something like Chariots of Fire (instrumental) would go under Category:1981 instrumentals to avoid it getting the "songs" treatment just because it's categorized as a single. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-releases

I have a question. Do the re-releases count in a the singles chronology from the infobox? I would assume not, as re-issues or remastered re-releases don't seem to count for albums, so the same logic applies here. I just want to be sure. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming when there are multiple songs but only one with an article

See Talk:Fireflies (song)#Other songs with the title "Fireflies". There are multiple songs with the title "Fireflies", but only one with an article. A similar situation exists with In America. Since the search box provides predictive matches now, a reader might reach Fireflies (song) when she intended one of the other songs. The guideline here on naming might be changed to encourage full disambiguation when other songs are covered on Wikipedia, not just when they have articles of their own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's currently policy to use the least precise disambiguator possible, see WP:PRECISION. If you think this needs changing it would need to be discussed at WT:TITLE rather than here. --JD554 (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Marrakesh Express- Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song- should we note its implied reference to hashish?

Every hippie knows that Marrakesh Express was written about hashish and Morocco being a large producer of the drug. Ask a hippie from the 60's. It's also referenced in the old game Dope Wars. link1 link2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawz101 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Discography RfC

Hello. If you can spare a few minutes your opinion would be appreciated at: Wikiproject/Discographies#Do music videos and other charted songs belong. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing redirected song titles

I have a question regarding the categorization of redirects of song titles to the album article for which the song appears. Should these redirects be categorized just as any song article would such as Category:1995 songs and Category:Foo songs for the artist Foo, even when the album article contains zero information about the song except as a track in the track listing. When I look through a category list, I expect to find some information about each item in the list. If it is appropriate, I would think a redirect could be created for every song on an album so the category for Foo songs contains an article or redirect for every song by that artist. Also brought up at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I note my comments on the matter

1. Categorized reedirects show up in italics in the categories so are identified as redirects in any event.
2. Categorization is indexing of articles, not articles in themselves.
3. The pertinent details of a song remain the same i.e. year of creation, single (if appropriate) artist and writers irrespective of whether it is a redirect.
4. Redirected songs should at least have Category:Redirects from songs on the article page as a minimum.
5. A song is not an album, but a component part (i.e. we are not be duplicating entries)
6. When redirected to an album unfortunately some editors delete all the song information, rather than actually merging any relevant parts.
7. The protocols for a notable article and redirect are different, seems no logical reason why we should use the same criteria.

All in all I consider categorizing song redirects as an aid to navigation, especially as redirects do show up as italics. The only thing I would not want to see is the mass creation of redirects to "big up" an artist and/or album. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the scale

Where might I submit an article for assessment by WikiProject Songs? I have done some work recently on "Nutbush City Limits" and noticed that it has not been rated on the quality scale since it was created. There are, I realise, several thousand such articles within the Project's domain, but any attention that can be spared for this one would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Apo-kalypso (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Natasha Bedingfield albums

Opinions would be appreciated at: WP:Albums#Two seperate albums released but both are marketed as her second album. Thanks --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Grown Woman" already available even though released date says August 3, 2010?

Rowland's official website, Amazon and iTunes all state that the single "Grown Woman" is available on August 3, 2010 yet according to Ips because Amazon and iTunes have a buy link you can apparently buy the single. Note that when previously noting releases iTunes and Amazon were verified against 7 Digital which according to their artist page for Rowland doesn't show "Grown Woman" as being released. Is it fair to call the single released when her website states its not available for another week? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is 'released' upon the day you can buy it from any reputable source, regardless of what an artist's website might indicate...UNLESS the Record Label reports that the sources 'released' it prematurely in error. And of course sales of promotional copies does not qualify as a release.—99.186.119.110 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Peak position

For a song that is currently charting (upwardly mobile), is it not crystal-balling to indicate the "peak position" until it has started coming back down? –xeno^talk 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not crystal-balling to state a peak position "so far" that is verifiable as it has ALREADY reached the position indicated (not a future event). As long as the proper qualifier of "so far" "thus far" or similar is used. I have seen this done many times. It can be updated as necessary as is done with many songs as they chart higher (if they do). I've NEVER seen a chart at wiki that shows the "current position".99.186.119.110 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(This stems from a disagreement at Ghost (Fefe Dobson song)) I've left the table as "Peak position" because this is what's used in other articles. Still strikes me as peculiar: we can't determine a peak until it start to decline, which is why I changed the article text. –xeno^talk 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but the "current position" seems peculiar to me. Will the current position be continually updated even AFTER the 'ultimate' peak is obtained? This would show the falling position and then finally would report it falling off the chart. This would be excessive chart trajectory information. Since we are using the text "Peak position" in the table, shouldn't we properly qualify that as 'so far' or other language in the article text to indicate that it might not be the ultimate peak obtained?—99.186.119.110 (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the edits per common sense and the literal definition of peak. If articles are generally written otherwise, I'll accept that, but wanted a third opinion. "Highest position so far" would make more sense, no? –xeno^talk 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well...no third opinion yet. But I have no problem with article text of 'achieved the highest position so far of #17 on the Canadian Hot 100' as the 'highest' position is more notable than the current position should they differ. As we are the principals in this matter and I believe we have achieved an agreement without dispute from others, please proceed as per your suggestion. However it should change from 'highest position so far' to 'peak position' upon recognition of the 'ultimate' peak position. Ok? —99.186.119.110 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Cheers, –xeno^talk 22:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, then case closed :) —99.186.119.110 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)