User talk:Wahoofive/Lists of songs

'''This page has now been moved to Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. Please comment there, not here.'''

What is trivial, exactly?
I love this proposal! I do anticipate that some might object regarding triviality, since a minority appear to believe the dubious claim that a reasonably large group of people care about trivia like songs between six and seven minutes long, and might search for it.

To head-off these arguments, I'd like to tighten the definition of what trivial means in this context. Wahoo has a good start, but I think more specificity is needed to convince any doubters. Sadly, being stupid, I don't know how and where to tighten. I'll ram my head against the wall to try and help, but I raise the issue so that smarter people might address it first. Xoloz 04:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, what if we started with the most restrictive version of the "topical" list proposal that would still allow any lists:


 * "Topic-based lists must relate to an article on the topic mentioned; for example, List of blackface minstrel songs is an obvious extension of Blackface minstrelsy. This is an absolute requirement."


 * we could work on making it less restrictive, rather than starting from a policy inclusive of everything and then tacking on slight restrictions like "No lists of songs similar to a list of songs between six and seven minutes long", "no lists of songs similar to a list of songs about dead pet armadillos," etc.


 * Although I suppose I should point out that I believe the policy should be "Topic-based lists must relate to an article on the topic mentioned." The Literate Engineer 04:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue about that approach is simple: a more restrictive rule (which, in this case, I personally support) may not garner the necessary wide consensus. Xoloz 05:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Xoloz on this point, sympathetic though I am to the concept. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In general, this whole proposal looks reasonable, and given some recent AfD discussions, I'm inclined to say it's needed.  Barno 17:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I still do not like the criterium of "there must be an article". 1. The intro of the list could be substantially enough by itself. 2. The link to an little-too-far-away article is easy, though out of this intention. Prefered phrasing, like: in "Songs about topic" the topic should be able to have an article.'' -DePiep 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How is that different from the current phrasing: Topic-based lists should ideally relate to an article on the topic mentioned? I intentionally phrased it to make that the preferred method, while leaving an opening for other lists. The intent is to make the bar for nontriviality higher for lists which don't relate to prose articles. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

About verifyability
I think the criterium on Verifyability is too strict, depending on facts only. Since we are talking about songs (literature), we are gonna miss a lot of non-factual things. EG: The idea that Dylan's Mr. Tambourine Man can be heard as telling about drugs (allthough only in parallels!) is indispensable. Such an allusion/parabel/subtlety should not be discarded. -DePiep 18:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But you can find plenty of sources that explain how Mr. Tambourine Man is full of drug references. Same goes for many popular songs with double meanings/double entendres. -- BD2412 talk 18:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with BDA. If you can't find references in reputable sources (professional mags, not just somebody's raving in a fanzine), then the idea isn't indispensible and isn't sufficiently noted to be encyclopedic.  WP is not Publish-Any-Subtle-Allusions-Anyone-Can-Imagine-About-Songs-pedia.  Barno 18:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, these sources exist. But the (strickt) verifyable-criterium only mentions facts, not (quality) descriptions. That's why I wrote "facts". But appearantly we trust and agree on an outcome, that (e.g.) Mr. Tambourine Man would be on the list. So we agree. Of course the discussion per song can shift to the fanzine-gossip-level, but we'll manage. -DePiep 19:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Single-artist
"Lists of songs by a single artist belong with that artist, or with that artist's albums." In general, good advice, but shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule. If the artist article is long enough (e.g. The Beatles), there's a good chance that song list, discography, etc. merits a separate article. (For a non-musical example of something like this, see Jorge Luis Borges and Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The comparison doesn't really apply, though, since there is no equivalent to albums in the literary world. Even for the Beatles, the songs on each album appear on that album's page. The only list I noticed on The Beatles is List of The Beatles songs by singer, which really could go under each singer's page. Note that List of The Beatles songs is a redlink (cf List of Nine Inch Nails covers and List of songs covered by the band Pearl Jam). &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. There is a List of The Beatles songs written by George Harrison, but that could easily fit in the George Harrison article. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)