Talk:List of songs in Smash

Wow
I'm just amazed at how wrong an article can be. If I knew how I would fix but I unfortunately I do not :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.224.51 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to explain what your objections are? You don't make clear what you think is wrong. People here know how to fix it if you explain with specifics what you think the problem is and they agree. Ducold (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it's fixed now, but the problem was that half the songs didn't have a source. Also the season 2 list seemed like it was made by someone who didn't even watch the show, they just put a bunch of songs in the list that were definitely not in season 2. But it's fixed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.229.45 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that early song list was originals that were known would be in Season 2 based on the Bombshell album songs; I think it was basically done as a holding pattern until it was known what episodes the songs would be in. Ducold (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Reorganize
With the new Bombshell album, it might be time to reorganize the table. How about the alterative versions of songs each get a separate row since they have different performers and albums, change the 'Performed by' to give the singers real names, drop the broken announcement references, and have the table have these columns: Chiok (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering there likely be at least one, possibly 2, more albums by the end of the season (Hit List and the second Vol of the Music of Smash possibly), it might be best to wait until the end of the season and with all the albums out before we reorganize. The proposed chart also seems like there's more information than necessary. Track Numbers seem unnecessary considering the album pages will detail that. Every original but one in Season 1 was done by Shaiman and Wittman, and most of the originals in Season 2 are also done by them, plus the pages for the covers will have the composer information, so the composer column seems really unnecessary. I'm open to other opinions though. Ducold (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The two songs we've seen of the second musical had different composers. Season two's Shaiman and Wittman songs that we've seen are Bombshell songs. (I think.  I'm not sure who wrote "Mama Makes Three".)  I suspect that the second musical will have a wide mix of composers and the exceptions to Shaiman-Wittman will be the rule which is why I think this will be a helpful column going forward, but we don't know much about the second musical yet. Chiok (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Composed By column would actually be a good idea for the 2nd Season table. In Season 2, Shaiman-Wittman reportedly wrote all the songs that aren't Hit List songs (except for one I think) but there will probably be enough other composers to make the column necessary Ducold (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Chiok, looking over the charts and your suggestions again, I would definitely support dropping the References column; I don't think we need article references for songs already performed at least. As for separate rows for the alternative versions of songs, I would support this, as long as it's consistent, which it isn't right now. Of course that depends on whether we want the table to reflect the song itself with the episode column showing all the times it's performed and not worrying about being completely accurate as to who performed it in the show, or being accurate about each time it's sung and what episode and who sung it. The latter might make sense if we also indicate that it's a reprise of the song and if it's a partial version where appropriate. At the moment I'm not sure which way we should be going, though I'm leaning towards making sure we at least list the songs once and being compact about what episodes they are sung in; otherwise, the charts get to be a bit big. As for your suggestion about separate columns for each album, I still don't think that's very practical since there are more albums likely coming; I think one column for albums is way more practical. If you look at Nashville's (ABC musical series) discography page, it has a column for whether a single was released and a column for the name of the album(s), similar to this page, so I think that's the path we should stick with on the album front. Also, one thing I'm wondering is, do we need references for the albums in the charts if they have their own Wiki page? Ducold (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I was thinking that this would be a single master list that combined all the songs from the show, the singles, and the CDs where you could sort the list on by name, episode, or CD track depending on how you want to look at the information. That might not be what this page is.  This page might be primarily a list of songs in the show itself that has associated single/CD information.  In that case, the Album column is perfect.  A column on the Bombshell page that has the episode number of that particular version is probably what I was really looking for.


 * I was wondering if songs like Jane Krakowski's Smash and Megan Hilty's Dig Deep should be included on this page as they, respectively, won't and haven't yet appear on the show.Chiok (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jane and Megan's versions are mentioned on the Bombshell page, as is Christine Ebersole's version of Second Hand White Baby Grand. I don't feel Jane and Christine's versions belong here at all since they don't perform them on the show. If Megan does a version of Dig Deep later in the show, it would make sense to include it in the chart here. And I do think this page is better served as a list of songs on the show itself and then the album pages would show the particular track information. Ducold (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.Chiok (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What do we do about The Higher You Get... song?
Since it doesn't have its own page, I'll ask here. The original song "The Higher You Get, the Farther the Fall" was never released as a single or on either of the Smash albums, though it was shown on the show in part and in full on the Season 1 DVD set. Should it get its own page anyway or would it fail the notability question? Ducold (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well considering I made all the other smash song articles, I *could* make it. Or else I could just be too lazy and not bother. Pr not make it because i doubt it's notable enoguh. Or you could made it. Or we can depreciate all the song articles and merge them into a Bombshell songs article in the same vein as the 'list of pokemon' articles. If we doubt that any of the song articles are notable enough. Your voice, your choice. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's notable enough for its own page.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We could compress all the original song information into one page if in the future notability is raised, but that would be an awful lot of stuff on one page considering there will likely be a few dozen originals when the series is over. Of course, we can always include the song details on the relevant episode pages (assuming those survive notability challenges). Perhaps only those songs that have been released on cast albums and/or have sold as singles and have sold enough copies to make a digital songs chart should have their own pages, and then all the songs should be described on one page (or in the individual episode pages). I'm not sure the best way to go on this. This show creates complexity with all its moving parts. :) Ducold (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, true story, notability *was* raised. A few days after I created the first batch of articles, if memory served. And all the articles were flat out deleted. Or maybe it was redirected. And I fought hard to bring them back, and I think the deleter just gave up in the end. So you could say they are existing on borrowed time. I always thought that was a feasible solution (the list), but it would have taken too much work to do it myself, besides I still thought they were notable in their own right. Even moreso now that they're part of the official Bombshell the musical track list. I wonder about the other original songs though.--Coin945 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a list would be a nice solution, but some of the songs are definitely notable enough for their own page (Let Me be Your Star, Touch Me). A list could work for some of the other songs, whose notability are more in question.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that Coin mentions it, I do recall seeing notability being raised somewhere, but I wasn't aware that song pages were deleted early on. I do think there's enough about the songs to at least have some paragraphs devoted to the details for each one, but if consensus determines that one page would suffice for all of them (if that's what you guys mean by a "list"), then I would be ok with that; I'm just not sure what is the best approach. Plus, as Caring said above, the few songs that have actually sold enough or have gotten on a Billboard chart (LMBYS, Touch Me) can also have their own pages. It would mean a lot of work consolidating all the information and fixing links elsewhere, but I would be willing to work on it over time. Ducold (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * An additional question: if we decide on one page for the details of the songs, should the info go on this page or would it end up making the page too long and would be better on its own page? Ducold (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how that 'one page' would work out, if these articles were all merged...--Coin945 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of something like the following:

Something like the above would probably work for all the songs, or we could split them into separate seasons. I just don't want to continually fight against deletion attempts because of notability issues (which is a perfectly valid argument). 144.51.89.67 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (Ducold away from home)
 * Yes, I was thinking something similar.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oooo woow! I just discovered that, Ducold, you've created a lot of Smash song articles. Way to go! That's awesome! I cans see both sides of the argument, but maybe (as I said before, and as we're leaning towards now), a List of pokemon type article may suit us good.--Coin945 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * isn't an article like List of Pokemon, what we have now, with this article?Caringtype1 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think inclusion for the list should be based on references. Articles like Let Me Be Your Star, which have 30 references, have proved notability. But articles with 1 or no references should probably be redirected to a list which would have all the same information, just on an article mentioning several songs, not just one. Caringtype1 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my bad. I meant the articles like List of Pokémon (1–51). The List of pokemon article used to be pretty much a list of all the List of Pokemon (x-y) lists. It's changed since then. Secondly, that is not a good way to decide what is notable or not. I specifically gave a lot of time to certain articles and not much to others, when the 10 or so new articles got made a couple of days ago, they had no references (or very few) at all. A decision I assume was made due to time/laziness. Therefore, a lot of those articles with 0 references may even be more notable than another with 15 dubious references. Don't think for one second that the articles are complete. And we haven't even scouted non-internet sources. One Rugrats episode became featured, even thoguh after a google search, I found next to nothing on it. The same may very well be the case here.--Coin945 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well of course, some of these articles can easily be improved with several references. But, that is not the case for all of them. Some songs just don't receive the much attention. These songs are why it is good to have a list. And once a list is made, that doesn't mean the sections can't be improved. We'll work to improve the sections, and if one gets enough sources and establishes notability, it can be split back into it's own article. Going by references, when we are first creating the list, would be an easy way to weed out songs that are definitely notable enough for their own pages. And as the series progresses, the will be many more songs to include, and making pages for all of them doesn't really make sense. A list would be a good way to keep track of the new songs, and then potentially split notable songs.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. I guess I was just making sure that you meant "general references such as those you might find in a google search" references as opposed to "the specific ones actually used in the articles at the moment".--Coin945 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In creating those recent song articles, I didn't include references right away mainly due to time and fatigue since I had already spent a few hours on them. I realize now I probably should have brought the subject up here first for discussion before creating them. As for an article that talks about the songs in detail, I'm leaning strongly towards that being the way to go. For one, it would forestall continued notability challenges that perhaps cannot be defended for many of the songs and leave us to deal with challenges, if there are any, for just a few songs we find noteworthy enough to also be split off into their own pages. It would also allow inclusion of all the songs (the originals at least), even those that never got a single release (like The Higher You Get...). This will allow us to build the page at our leisure, without worrying about putting in references right away for every song like is needed on an individual song page. So I basically agree with the thinking above about creating one page for all the songs. And as I said before, I would be willing to start it and of course work in concert with those who are interested in adding to it. And because we are in the middle of discussing this, I won't create any more new song pages for now. For the moment though, I'm not sure we should start the information on this page or start it on a separate page. I'm leaning towards a separate page from the beginning because we here all know it will contain a lot of information, but as I recall, Wikipedia guidelines say to keep information on the original page and split off when it becomes too big. 144.51.89.67 (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (Ducold away from home)
 * So would the list include every original song, or just those that aren't yet notable for their own page? I don't think the notable ones with an article need to be on the list. Also how would the songs be organized? Would they be listed based on when they were first used in the series, or alphabetically?Caringtype1 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say include every original song for completeness, but provide a link to the individual page for those that get one and perhaps go into more detail from a notability standpoint on that song's page, and on the all songs page, go into more detail about how it was used on the show (sort of a separation of information I suppose). As for organization, I'm thinking we would go in order of when they first appear in the show, similar to how they are listed on this page. Ducold (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So is something likethis along the lines of what you were thinking?Caringtype1 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, something like that, at least to start, though I wouldn't necessarily include that Infobox on the right for each one. We should have basic information for each song, similar to what's on the existing individual song pages, and we can always go into much more detail (like discussion of the choreography) for particular songs. Ducold (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So, are we ready to start this? I don't think we'll have more than 3 or 4 dozen songs at best in the end, especially given that the show isn't likely to last beyond this season (or a 3rd if NBC's Greenblatt is a gambling man). 144.51.89.67 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (Ducold away from home)

New page for song details created
Ok, since it looked like we had pretty much come to consensus that one page would suffice to hold most of the song details, I went ahead and created the page (Details of songs in Smash) and put that article link in this article. It's pretty much a copy and paste from the existing individual pages, with some major cleanup, for now. It's still somewhat messy, but I'm sure we can smooth it out over time and figure out additional details we want to include. Given that notability has been raised again on some of the individual pages, I think this will end up being the better solution for the bulk of these songs. Ducold (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure that is what the page should be called? I think something like "List of original songs in Smash" would be better.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We can discuss it and change it to something else if there's a better idea. However, we already have this article called "List of songs in Smash" which lists all the songs so your suggestion would maybe confuse things, making it sound like it would just be a list of the original songs, similar to this article. "Details of songs.." on the face of it seems like a better description since it contains detailed information and hopefully is not easily confused with this article. Ducold (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be similar to the name of this page, but the idea would be that this page includes all songs used, including original, covers, and reprises. I think the infoboxes should stay because there would be infoboxes if the songs had their own pages, and it is a good summary of all the information.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Singles column cleanup question
I realized recently that most of the songs from Season 1 that were initially released as singles are no longer available as singles from iTunes and Amazon's MP3 store, but are still available on one or both of the cast albums (though Uma Thurman's version of Dig Deep just isn't available). I was thinking of cleaning up the Singles column to change to "No" those songs no longer available separately from the albums. I was just going to go ahead and do it, but then I realized that big of a change might cause some concern. Would anyone have a problem with this? Ducold (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Performed by?
Shouldn't the "performed by" section be used to say who the song is performed by in actuality, not within the series. All the character names should be replaced with the names of the actors, for example Ivy Lynn to Megan Hilty.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It could go either way, but in the Nashville TV series and Glee list of songs in the series pages, they use character names. We do indicate in the Performers section who the actors are playing those characters. So for consistency, we should probably leave it the way it is. Ducold (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about complete season soundtracks
iTunes just released The Complete Season 1 and Season 2 soundtracks for the series. At the moment, it looks like they are exclusive to iTunes. Can pages be created for them even though they are exclusive to 1 digital retailer? Ducold (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of songs in Smash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306032310/https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx to https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)