Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 13

The usage of is up for discussion, see Talk:Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cocaine Blues and Woody Guthrie...
How could T. J. "Red" Arnall have written "Cocaine blues" when Woody Guthrie wrote it in 44??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.224.3 (talk)
 * That's probably a better question to ask on the article's talk page, instead of here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Optional language field in song/single infoboxes
I'm hoping we can wind up and actually action the suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_9 to allow editors an optional language field. This is particularly needed for (a) songs which aren't obvious, such as names Maria (song), and (b) for English-titled songs which are actually sung in Korean, Japanese, French or other languages despite an English title. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_song In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Song Title "Seattle" wiki page: "Seattle (song)"
The song title "Seattle" is also an instrumental recording (45RPM) by the band "The Fabulous Wailers"  ["Seattle" (Etiquette, 1963)]   as shown on "The Fabulous Wailers" wiki page. 130.76.32.51 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Writer of "Statue of a Fool"
Jan Crutchfield is generally credited as the writer of this song, but David Ruffin is credited as the writer on his 1973 self-titled album. Ruffin also claimed that he wrote the song. The copyright office list both Crutchfield and Ruffin as writers of this song, but does not mention a date. Does anyone know who actually wrote it? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * BMI credits Jan Crutchfield only. That's good enough for me. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the reason for the Ruffin's likely false claim that he wrote it? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP & Allmusic there is no track called Statue of a Fool on the Ruffin album. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake. The song is on Ruffin's 1975 album Who I Am. Why did Ruffin make a likely false statement that he wrote the song? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Pump It Up by Elvis Costello
Wikipedia states that "The Beastie Boys sampled "Pump It Up" for their song "Egg Man" on their album Paul's Boutique." I can find no evidence of this in the actual song, though Egg Man definitely samples a song with a similar bass line called "Superfly" by Curtis Mayfield. There are no sources cited in the article for the "Egg Man" claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tablesitter (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is streaming a single format?
At Talk:Thirsty (song), a debate started about whether or not streaming should be considered a single format. As this is something that could apply to any single release, and not just the one that sparked the conversation, it would be best to get consensus here and see how we, as a WikiProject, feel about streaming being considered a single format. Pinging those involved in the talk page discussion:     —  Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 06:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm not answering the exact question, but I think we should leave "Thirsty" as a promo single. Either way, you can be sure we'll have a video or much more info/confirmation on the song in the coming weeks. I suggest leaving "Thirsty" as a promo single until then. Tbh, neither bother me too much. I think it's more of a single than "TAOLG".-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If by "streaming", you are referring to simply radio play, then that often does suggest it has been released as a single. However, get third-party refs to ensure a debut of the song on said date. I'd say it depends on how much coverage it gets while it starts streaming. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think the "streaming" being referred to here regards digital audio streaming, i.e. a record label uploading a song to Soundcloud/Vevo/YouTube. If this is the case I'm leaning towards these not being considered singles in most instances, such as labels uploading lyric videos or individual videos for each track on an album. Though I can see an argument for labels uploading songs and explicitly listing them as singles to commercial streaming services like Spotify (examples:, ) being considered formats for release. Holiday56 (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My main drawback with streaming being used as a single release format is that has any other record charts included streaming actively as one of its component charts except for Billboard? If it is widely being included as one of the components for determining the primary charts, then I'm fine with accepting it as a medium for single release. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 09:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a promo single! I'm losing my will to live with this. Mariah and Def Jam have both confirmed it is the latest single to be released from the album. I really don't get why there is so much debate about this. No one has said it is a promo single, so that idea is a fabrication. —  ₳aron  12:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Calvin, the question for this discussion isn't so much whether "Thirsty" is a single as it is what date such a release would be marked as. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The radio premiere, first and foremost (it's still a form of release), and the streaming. It's so simple. —  ₳aron  13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion would be better served by a better-referenced/written single (music) article to cite or look to as far as what a single is--definitions of what a single is are blurrier than ever before because of format, so some guidelines would be useful. If this was the confirmation by Def Jam of "a brand new single", then it seems pretty informal to me and I don't think the author, David Amaya, was worried about the distinction between single and promo single when he wrote that one line advert. Otherwise, I'd usually lean toward a record label officially confirming a single, because the music industry has traditionally defined what a single is or isn't. If streaming is being embraced by labels like digital downloads were over a decade ago, then the definition is likely changing. Dan56 (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody confirmed "Drunk in Love". Mariah and her label have both confirmed its single status. I really don't see why people are having such a hard time with this. The radio premiere was clearly intended as its release. —  ₳aron  17:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop discussing "Thirty" here. This isn't what this discussion is about. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this is 100% what this discussion is about, Status. Without it, there would be no discussion. Nobody asked you to change the topic. —  ₳aron  10:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Streaming is a component of the Billboard Hot 100, Hot Country Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, and Hot Rock Songs - the major genre charts. I don't think there is a separate streaming chart as such but I do think that if a label makes the announcement that a song is a single, and then makes it available to stream it can be referred to as a single. I only think it should be allowed if BOTH of those conditions are met and WP:DUCK applies (if it is promoted and receives a music video etc). However, if a digital or radio date is released, that should be used instead of streaming in the infobox. Songs can now chart as a result of streaming and as we've seen in the UK, some labels don't even release songs for download anymore, instead using an impact day.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  20:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW and without further comment, other than the word "single" is not used, the Billboard Top 100 page says, "The week's most popular current songs across all genres, ranked by radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen BDS, sales data as compiled by Nielsen SoundScan and streaming activity data from online music sources tracked by Nielsen BDS. Songs are defined as current if they are newly-released titles, or songs receiving widespread airplay and/or sales activity for the first time." --Richhoncho (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Lil-unique1, streaming has been widely recognized by Billboard along with radio airplay and sales. As for, streaming has been included on German Singles Chart (previously only sales, now sales+streaming). It will be included on UK Singles Chart as well (currently only sales). Recording Industry Association of America has combined streaming and sales for certification (Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" is the first Diamond Award recipient of streaming+sales single ). IFPI Denmark has also provided certification separately for streaming. So, if the question is "is streaming a single format?", the answer is "if radio airplay is a single format, then so is streaming." Streaming is even recognized by certification providers, but radio airplay is not. Not every song uploaded to streaming provider is called single, just like not every song played on the radio is called single. I personally believe that only official announcements count. If a label / an artist announced a song as a single, then it must be a single (either for sale/radio/streaming). Bluesatellite (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does seem that streaming is being accepted in the way sales or radio play are with charts and certifications in different countries. It needs to be stressed heavily, that there must be reliable sources calling it a single if there is no retail sale (digital, CD, 7") or official radio impact date. Not sure if we should remove the streaming release in the infobox in favor of a different one, since we are supposed to use the first release date in the infobox. We need to have a clear consensus if we are going to begin classifying it as a proper single release, as this would change a lot of song, album and discography articles. Also it should only affect songs that have been released since streaming begun to be incorporated into charts. STATic message me!   17:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Proyecto:calidad de vida entre violencia
punto de  inicio  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.12.71 (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of songs and singles
Hello. It has come to my attention that, one year ago, User:Richhoncho removed every "Category:YYYY songs" from their corresponding "Category:YYYY singles" and justified it with "a single is (or was!) a piece of plastic" (example). Richhoncho also categorized many articles on singles both as "YYYY songs" and "YYYY singles", which I consider redundant, since I always thought singles were just songs released in a special, commercial way. I personally disagree with those changes, not only because we are in the digital download era (a downloaded song is not a piece of plastic), but also because I never knew singles not being songs was something to be so sure about. If that's the new and right way, I'd like to have it confirmed by the fellow members of this project so that I (and other editors in doubt that may consult this topic in the future) can create articles with this in mind. I will also invite members of the WikiProject Music to comment on this matter. Victão Lopes Fala! 20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I initially supported your view but ive since changed my mind. For example, if Celine Dion recorded song "ABC" for album released in 2008 and then someone else covered that song in 2011 and released it as single the same year, it would need classifying as both a single and a song. The way to think about it is imagine if it was a female actress. You would want to classify such an article as in the category: British Woman and British female actresses even though tenchically speaking, one could be the latter without being the former.   → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1  - {  Talk  } -  21:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will probably be responding more. Firstly, there was a contradiction, WP:SONGS says, and has said for a number of years, there should be categorization by song AND single, whilst as you point out the two categories were parent and child. This is and was patently absurd and needed to be resolved. There was a discussion on these very talk pages and there was consensus - I merely delivered the coup de grace on the stupidity that the creation of a song and the marketing of that song are one and the same. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know about that discussion, though I tried using the "search archives" feature above. Can anyone provide me with the link or title of the topic? Victão Lopes  Fala! 23:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * songs by year is one discussion, there was at least one other discussion which came to the same conclusion. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How about we make a small change at WP:SONG?


 * "For example, "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)" by The Temptations was released in 1971, so it is in Category:The Temptations songs, Category:1971 songs and Category:1971 singles, Category:Songs written by Barrett Strong, Category:Songs written by Norman Whitfield [...]" Victão Lopes  Fala! 16:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection from me whatsoever. Please amend in a day or two if there are no objections. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No objections in ten days, I'm making the change. Victão Lopes  Fala! 04:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify i am in favour of using both XXXX year single and XXXX year song in the same article.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  15:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion. See talk:Womanizer (song) where it is requested that the song replace the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Songs At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adikhajuria (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

King for a Day (Pierce the Veil song)
I wrote a new article for the Pierce the Veil song "King for a Day" because it got charted at Hot Rock Charts and Digital Rock Songs Charts both published on Billboard. The song was nominated for Best Video and Best Single at the 2013s Kerrang! Awards and won for the best music video. I even found something about the songs background. Sourches are in the article. --Goroth (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment to Let It Go (Disney song)
It has been greatly improved since last assessment. Hope to get a B-class (or even A-class, if yiu guys really have A-class reviews, as I saw it says '4' on A-class article count).Forbidden User (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also

There's an ongoing debate here about whether or not to include the radio version of this song as a single infobox. Additional comments are welcomed. ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 06:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, where Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) has been requested to be renamed to "Dr. Who (song)". For the discussion, see talk: Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not include artist with song title
For 90% of songs there's only 1 artist. So why then not for such songs always have FOO redirect to FOO (artist song)? Whom does not having the artist name in title benefit? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In short: with most song articles disambiguation like that is unnecessary, as there is no conflict in naming the article. WP:SONG —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Mayast, thanks, yes I'm well aware of how WP:DAB and how we disambiguate generally, say footballers, but that isn't the question I asked. What I asked was a different question: Assuming cases where the baseline redirects anyway, then whom does not having the artist name in title benefit? Take an example "Rainy Days and Mondays" - whom does not having (FOO artist) in title benefit? In ictu oculi (talk)
 * The important question is, how does having the artist in the article title benefit anyone more than just having the song's title (assuming, of course, that there is only one such song with an article)? Right now "Rainy Days and Mondays" doesn't have the artist listed afterwards, nor do I see a need for it. Why would someone search for Rainy Days and Mondays (The Carpenters song)? In all likelihood they'll simply search for Rainy Days and Mondays, and find what they're looking for. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple, how does having the artist in the article title benefit anyone having more than just having the song's title?
 * (1) It benefits those looking for the song that the autocomplete or Google result or iPhone search confirms that they have found what they were looking for.
 * (2) It benefits those not looking for the song that the autocomplete or Google result or iPhone search confirms that they have not found what they were looking for.
 * (3) It benefits editors that they don't have to worry about another article mentioning a different song either at the time or in the future.
 * So that's 3 benefits to 3 groups. Good question, easily answered. So what is the answer on the other side of the coin? Can someone please help by giving an example in answer to my question: Assuming cases where the baseline redirects anyway, then whom does not having the artist name in title benefit? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that your answers actually answer my question all that much. Again using your example of "Rainy Days and Mondays", was there another article that someone typing in that phrase could reasonably have expected to go to? A Google search resulted in 2 youtube videos, then the Wikipedia article, with a short excerpt below the link saying that it is about the song (specifically, it quotes the beginning of the lead, which immediately labels it as the song). Having the artist after the title would not have significantly benefited someone searching for it on Google over the result they already got. Same with WP's autocomplete: typing in Rainy Days and Mondays gave the song as the only autocomplete result, and with no similar competing results, I don't see how having the artist name afterwards would have changed anything for the user. (I can't comment on your iPhone search thing, as I don't own an iPhone.) As for your third point, if and when that becomes an issue, it can be dealt with then. But further disambiguating articles that don't currently need to be DABed does not appear to actually provide any significant additional benefit for users, and even goes against WP:PRECISION.
 * As for your question, I would say it is not a benefit to editors who would have to then go and change some/dozens/possibly hundreds of links (depending on what song is being moved) to redirect to the new location. This would be a waste of time that could have been better spent improving articles. It also sets a bad example for less-experienced users, who would then create or move articles to locations that are too precise (again, WP:PRECISION), whether about song articles or other topics. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I picked that song at random without proposing it for the type of test you have run. If we try that test with 10 other songs from Category:2014 songs it is certain that in at least half cases the result will be greatly obstructive to readers. But even with that example you don't deny, if I have understood you correctly, that including the artist name benefits (1) those looking for the song, (2) those not looking for the song.
 * Another Love - lack of artist not helpful to readers.
 * All We Need Is Love - lack of artist not helpful to readers.
 * Etc.
 * As regards (3) whether it benefits editors that they don't have to worry about another article mentioning a different song either at the time or in the future, since that relates to the future evidently it helps editors relative to the current situation.
 * Regarding your two objections:
 * A. CHANGE LINKS. No one has to change any links. Why would anyone change any links?
 * B. TOO PRECISE. But "why" is the name of an artist "too precise" - this isn't a footballer bio, we're talking about media products where the main product is the artist, each individual song is only a peripheral, a byproduct. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I should say that what I'm asking is purely on the level of what is best for readers, I am trying to understand who benefits from removing an artist name when the redirect redirects there anyway just as redirect Mozart redirects to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This is my question. I have asked this of a couple of individual editors before and never received an answer. The usual answer is in the lines of "it doesn't help readers, it is WP:PRECISION" which is fine, we can do things that make life difficult for readers if policy is iron-clad with no exceptions, but WP:PRECISION says there can be exceptions: I feel what we're doing here is akin to Horowitz which would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. We're creating 1000s of articles which are a giant frustrating guessing game for readers, and for no discernable reason. Why are we doing it? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion, which I hope will resolve some of the disputes going on. FWIW I would be opposed to adding an artist's name in every instance, but I would appreciate if WP:SONGDAB took precedence over WP:DAB. As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being relevant for something as transiently famous as a song... and I do mean famous rather than notable... it's nothing short of a joke. It would be nice if we didn't see the Paris example trotted out to confirm primarytopic applies to songs. As for WP:DAB the only cultural item akin to a song mentioned is "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet" for which I only found 19 ghits.
 * The reason I started taking an interest in song RMs because of the incessant page moves, the jockeying for position between two songs with the same name (mine is PT, not yours, yah-boo!). Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Richhoncho well said. FWIW I also would be opposed to adding an artist's name in every instance, there are 5-10% of songs where Google Books shows several versions or a one-hit-wonder artist have made the song more distinctive than the singer. Back in the sheet music era particularly. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then how would we determine in a particular case if the artist's name should be added or not? Should the users who start new song articles always check Google Books results? I don't see how that could work. If the majority decides to change the guidelines, they should apply to all the songs, not just 10% or 50% or 90% of articles in the scope of this WikiProject. Anyway, I would oppose such a change, as I like the current naming guidelines. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 15:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP has been, quietly and without too much opposition, using the first notable artist for disambiguation. By keeping to a chronological order there isn't much room for dispute. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Mayast, same answer as Richhoncho. In practice it already works well for those articles which do include artist name, so no reason it wouldn't work for the others.
 * No, users who start new song articles (with invariably means 2014 songs) wouldn't need to check Google Books results - they just create with a complete title FOO (artist song), so much easier than the current having to check what else is there.
 * But this is all further down the road. I asked this question to see if anyone can say whom hiding the artist helps. So far that question hasn't been addressed. Who benefits from so many songs not having artists? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hiding the artist never helps unless the song is known for multiple recordings/performances. So, generally, and with notable exceptions, it is better to add the artist name for anything post-1965 and use year or songwriter for pre-1965. Pretty much what has been happening except for one or two editors that thing everything should be the same - as if it could be!
 * I also see no point in moving articles for the sake of moving articles. We presently have an RM to remove a artist's name when nearly 200 different editors have edited the page over a 6 month period. Where is the point? Surely stability has been established? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, a bracketed term following a headword is a disambiguator. I can't see why principles stated at Disambiguation ought to be changed for one class of article, song titles. Many articles would possibly profit to a certain extent and in certain circumstances from having more elaborate descriptors, but that's not how article names are determined here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael, thanks for your addition to this discussion. I agree with you that many articles would profit to a certain extent... There is a reasonable argument that, for song titles, we say, for example,  "The Madonna song, Holiday" to distinquish what we are talking about, or Holiday (Madonna song), and that could be supported by WP:COMMONNAME. We also need to consider the commonality of cultural titles and the long term significance (WP:DAB) of song titles. There are very few "pop songs" which have long term significance and many titles are used more than once - especially those that use common phrases like One More Night. Now the problem is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, do we look to see which song is primarytopic (and it is not primaryARTICLE) on a daily basis? a weekly basis? (contrary to WP:RECENTISM) or is it better to disambiguate all songs called "One More Night" by artist? This is why WP:SONGDAB (and authorized by policy WP:AT says if there are two or more songs with the same title you disambiguate fully. I think that is perfect solution, unfortunately some want to apply PT in every instance.
 * Finally, whatever WP policies say, there will always be defendable reasons not adhere to a policy. In the case of songs, I would guess that about 20% are disambiguated by the word (song) and about the same again are disambiguated by (artist song). It's not going away, sometimes it is absolutely necessary and totally unavoidable and sometimes not strictly speaking necessary or unavoidable, but a good idea, nevertheless. If XYZ is a unique song title, it is only unique until somebody else uses the title, so if it is at XYZ (Foo song) what benefit to move? IS the title misleading? In most cases stability of article is much more important that WP:DAB. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Mayast and Michael Bednarek already explained it all. We don't disambiguate titles if there's no reason for it, and that's everything we need to bear in mind for now. Anyway, this should actually be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or somewhere else. Why should song articles work differently than the rest of Wikipedia? Why shouldn't this be applied at album articles too? Let us give a wider group of editors the opportunity to discuss such a change in naming conventions. I would be against it anyway for the aforementioned reasons. Victão Lopes Fala! 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Victão Lopes. This is supposed to be a discussion, and a preliminary discussion at that - it can't, nor should it, change anything at WP:DAB. You are right, much of what is being discussed here could affect not only songs and albums, but books, films and other creative/artistic works. Are you sure you wouldn't like to discuss why you think everything is correct as it is? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I took it hastily as a proposal. But I'll keep my opinion anyway, articles should be disambiguated when they need to be disambiguated. Forgive me for sounding too surly, but it's as simple as it is and I still don't understand why it should be different now. It's not intuitive to create a song article with the artist name attached to it if there's no clear reason for it. Victão Lopes  Fala! 17:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a proposal, it's a hang on, what are we doing and why? discussion. You say "It's not intuitive to create a song article with the artist name attached to it if there's no clear reason for it." but there may well be a clear reason for it. Currently guidance effectively says:


 * That's slightly overstated by inverting current guidance language but the result is pretty much the same. Billboard always gives the artist name when mentioning a song, so it isn't really a case of Paris, France or Cadillac (car), this is an area which absolute brevity, intuitive or not, may not be user friendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In which context do you refer to Billboard? I mean, mentioning a song within a news story or a chart page is quite different than entitling an article. Victão Lopes  Fala! 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we are discussing titles the context is either title of an article or title in a chart page, the artist is always clearly indicated. Incidentally, this idea that there is a wp rule that titles must be as short as possible isn't the case, for example take Harusame which redirects to Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937). If this was a song we'd delete [ Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937) ] to remove artist, but several project guidelines - particularly WP SHIPS, WP:USPLACE, and WP ROYALTY AND NOBILITY place recognizable titles ahead of maximum shortness. This is entirely a wp songs decision. If we wanted to include (Pat Boone song) we could, it's entirely within WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this is a WP:MUSIC guideline. We have How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb instead of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (U2 album). And we have Adam Clayton instead of Adam Clayton (U2 member). I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is the best title because that's how the song was named and there's no other song with that name here. Since you started this topic by questioning who would be benefiting from the absence of the artists' names at song articles titles, let me ask: who is being affected by it? Victão Lopes  Fala! 04:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasonable question. Yes I started this topic by questioning who would be benefiting from the absence of the artists' names at song articles titles, to the question: who is being affected by it? I would say all readers, but especially
 * [i] any Android/iPhone reader who does not have image display activated on their mobile, or who is looking for an album song which either (a) does not have an uploaded image, (b) where image itself doesn't say the band or title
 * [ii] any reader, using PC or mobile, who is looking for a song or album before 2005. Maybe the practice of concealing artist names wouldn't be so user-unfriendly if we had equal coverage from 1930-1990 as we do of 2010-2014, but we don't, the article stock is massively overloaded to WP:RECENT products which often have articles before they've been released. What that means is that any reader wanting a 1960s 1970s 1980s song will almost certainly go to [What I am looking for (song)] and find it is [Same title as what I am looking for (but a new 2014 artist I've never heard of]. Sometimes editors of 2010-2014 hatnote their articles to allow readers to find a dab, or link to albums where 1960s 1970s 1980s singles get a mention, but generally we don't, generally we funnel readers to the latest 2014 single. The 2010 - 2014 song and album categories are crammed with semi-notable short-lived product covering over 100s of equally or more notable songs from 1960s 1970s 1980s.
 * [iii] editor will benefit from not having to constantly trim titles
 * So that is my answer. I did actually state it above already so I'm wondering why I'm being asked to repeat it. But whatever. So, please, Victor, someone explain who benefits from habitually removing an artist name where there are no cover versions and where the artist is the main product. The problem of what we're doing has been stated several times above, the benefit, any benefit, has not been stated once. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Question
In ictu oculi asked above, ''For 90% of songs there's only 1 artist. So why then not for such songs always have FOO redirect to FOO (artist song)? Whom does not having the artist name in title benefit?'' and there doesn't appear to be an answer other than "look at the guidelines." So I would like to ask a slightly reworded version of the question :- Thanks, --Richhoncho (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If an editor creates a song article with the title Unique song title (Foo artist) and it remains at there for a period of time, could it stay there as being stable, or must it be moved to Unique song title, per quidelines?
 * Personally, I would move it ;) I'm not sure what you mean by stability, but if you worry about readers not being able to find the article, there will always be the "Unique_song_title (Foo artist)" redirect, and in my opinion that solves the problem. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 10:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mayast here. Additionally, if a song has always been at "Song Title", I see nothing wrong with adding a redirect page at "Song Title (Artist Name)" that redirects back to the article "Song Title". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be moved. Stability is guaranteed by the subsequent redirect. At the worst scenario, one would have to edit many internal links so that they go directly to the article and not via a redirect. Victão Lopes  Fala! 22:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, fair answers, although I would not move, I can't fault your answers. So now I ask question #2 Again, thanks for your answers. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A different song with the same name becomes notable and an editor creates Unique song title (Foo2 artist), is there anything a conscientious editor must do?
 * I think that there are a few options here, if someone has more ideas please add them as well: 1. The first song is still the most notable song with that title (would be best to determine that in a discussion with other Editors). In that case it can be left at "Unique_song_title" or "Unique_song_title (song)" (if there are also other, non-song articles), and a hatnote is added saying something like This article is about the song by Foo. For the song by Foo2, see "Unique_song_title (Foo2 song)". Or, if there are multiple songs with the same title, the hatnote can look like this: For other songs with this title, see "Unique_song_title (disambiguation)". Example: Yesterday. 2. It's hard to tell which of the two songs is more notable. In that case, you might move the first article to "Unique_song_title (Foo song)", and create the article for the second song at "Unique_song_title (Foo2 song)". Then "Unique_song_title" can act as a disambiguation page with links to those articles. But this option is a little tricky, as you need to check what pages used to link to the first song's article and manually edit those links, so that they don't point at the disambiguation page – that's why it's easier to make a move like this with articles with a smaller number of links within Wikipedia. One small piece of advice: usually many links come from articles about other songs/albums etc. by artist Foo, even though our Unique_song_title wasn't mentioned anywhere in the text in those articles. That's because the articles are linked via artist template, so you just need to edit the template and wait a few hours for all the pages to catch up. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 11:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've just stumbled upon "Like I Love You", which is another good example of the first option. However, the article was missing the hatnote and there was no disambiguation page fot this title, so I created it: Like I Love You (disambiguation).  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 12:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Same as Mayast. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply here, and a brief discussion can solve any possible controversies. Victão Lopes  Fala! 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Victão Lopes wrote above, in a response to IIO, "No, this is a WP:MUSIC guideline." which suggests that you do approve of music/song guidelines. So why should WP:SONGDAB (a music guideline) be usurped by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is avoided by many other projects, is not compulsory, and a careful reading does suggest that, even when applied, should only be for significantly and long-term article names. Sorry for brevity of question, I need to get back to this particular discussion in full). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi and Richhoncho, I'm answering you both here. I'm still not convinced that the absence of the artists names on song articles is such a big deal. In ictu oculi expressed concerns about Android/iPhone users, but I'm a Android user myself and I couldn't understand how the absence of (FOO song) in Example Song could be a problem for me or anyone else. I'm constantly creating album articles (assuming In ictu oculi's logic also applies to album articles) and I see no problem in trimming titles, it's much easier to create the internal links afterwards. Richhoncho, I'm not putting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC above WP:SONGDAB. to be honest, I didn't understand why you linked them; WP:SONGDAB agrees with me ("When necessary, disambiguation should be done") and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a matter for multiple articles. What would it have to do with a case like "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", which I mentioned above? Talking about this song, let me ask two questions:
 * 1st: What would change (for readers, for editors) if we moved I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For to I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (U2 song)?
 * 2nd: If someone needs to "benefit" from I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For not being I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (U2 song), does it mean someone is benefiting from Pierce Brosnan not being Pierce Brosnan (actor); Nightwish not being Nightwish (Finnish band); Campos dos Goytacazes not being Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro and so on?  Victão Lopes  Fala!
 * sorry I can't see who signed this I would answer that that would be because (1) Campos dos Goytacazes is a town not song, it isn't a byproduct of a main product (band or singer), (2) doesn't have 6 more Campos dos Goytacazes in en.wp album articles, Billboard, allmusic.com and Amazon. The same is true for Pierce Brosnan, he has notability in himself, not inherited from being sung by a notable artist, and consequently he is recognisable without his singer. That essentially is the difference between the latest installment of an artist's media franchise in the 2010s and a self-standing notable broadsheet song in the 1700s. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, what if someone creates a film with such a name? Then people may search for it, and they'll only find the city, not the hypothetical movie, unless someone creates the article Campo dos Goytacazes (film). Please, see my next comment down there for some additions on this reasoning. Victão Lopes Fala! 18:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same things, but wasn't able to express myself so clearly. I agree with you 100%.  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 00:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll read everything later, I would just like to point out that the post with the Pierce Brosnan example was written by Victor Lopes, not me. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 11:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you haven't noticed that IIO and I are not in agreement, but I do see his point that to have the name of the artist is hardly disfigurement. My questions were designed to see where a certain scenario will take editors who responded and I am grateful for your responses. The three of you clearly replied PT says do this and that's what we do. I am not debating where Pierce Brosnan, Nightwish or Campos dos Goytacazes should be - that is misleading and not relevant to song titles. I am happy to accept that I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is in the correct article namespace, but I would not move from I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (U2 song) (if it had been there). I just did a search of both BMI and ASCAP for I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For and didn't find the U2 song, but I did find two other songs with precisely the same title, one written by Melanie Safka and one by Samuel Bar (I think). And this is the root of the problem, song titles are rarely original, and I am sure that some people have been looking for the other two songs and only found U2. Is that correct for an encyclopedia that is not paper? Bearing in mind popular music is compartmentalized by the listeners by age, nationality, genre and other reasons, who is WP to think that the U2 song is primary and is it primary for all readers? This is why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline which suggests a solution when one usage is far more important than another over a period of time, OTOH WP:SONGDAB says quite clearly that songs should not ranked by primarytopic. There are further benefits to songdab in the long run, it cuts down the number of moves and long winded discussions over which song is PT (a debate which changes over time as in On My Way (song)).
 * If I can get you guys to accept songdab should be applied over PT, we have much more stability, a lot less re-dabbing, and more time to improve the coverage of songs. That's a win-win situation in my book. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS I am NOT advocating moving the U2 song - it wasn't me who mentioned it first... --Richhoncho (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you're not, I'm just using it as an example because it is a song that matches the description IIO used when he opened this topic (a song with only one artist). Look, I see your point, but I'm going back to one of the earliest questions of this discussion: why should we disambiguate what doesn't need to be disambiguated? You gave us examples of other songs named I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For - but none of them have articles on Wikipedia. What difference would (U2 song) make then? You are citing two guidelines that are in general used only when two or more articles with the same title exist. Mostly because of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, I don't think it is a good idea to have editors creating articles like FOOFOOFOO (Metallica song) instead of FOOFOOFOO as a standard procedure because that would mean they are editing base on suppositions, I mean, based on the possibility that one day someone may search for FOOFOOFOO by Some Minor Artist. Even if someone does search for it, they will be taken to FOOFOOFOO by Metallica, and with just a glance at the first lines or at the infobox they'll find out they're not in the right page. What difference would (Metallica song) have made then? What does (NAMEOFTHEARTIST song) avoid, and what information can it provide for the user that an infobox or a introductory paragraph cannot? Victão Lopes  Fala! 04:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it would save the users 5-10 seconds of the little disc spinning expensively on a mobile (at however much their mobile provider charges for waiting) only to painfully download a song article just to find out who the mystery artist was, and find out it wasn't the one they were looking. Mainly I'm talking about songs where other songs with the same title already exist in (i) album articles, (ii) Billboard (iii) on allmusic and (iv) Amazon, which is most songs. If we don't cover song we should be upfront about it, so as not to waste readers' time and phone bills. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * May I note by the way that we seem to be having a 1-way conversation whereby I answer questions, but my Harusame question is not addressed. :( In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is your Harusame question? Completing my comment above: Wikipedia is already quite confusing and technically complex for new editors, why confuse them further by saying "hey, create song articles with the name people would search for, but don't forget about those who could search for another song with that same name"? The possibility of adopting this procedure may pave the way for subsequent oddities such as the ones I cited above. It's all in the same logic of "let me specify X because someone might one day search for Y and they'll be disappointed and unfairly charged for browsing the wrong article in their mobile phones". Films, albums, games... they're all products subjected to having other works with the same name. Why are we only talking about songs? Victão Lopes Fala! 18:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IIO's Harusame question was in the above section, but the gist of it is that a number of projects insist on fuller disambiguation, so why not in music? I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is a U2 song and no reason to hide the band name has been been really offered. With regard to your "not biting the newbies" I dread to think how many songs have been started at Song (Foo song) and then (Foo song) removed because it was possible. How's that for confusing new editors? Returning to my unanswered question, why should WP:PRIMARYTOPIC take precedence of WP:SONGDAB, as Victão Lopes and Mayast suggest above? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're right: many songs were indeed started as Song (Foo song) and then moved to a more appropriate title. I myself did that a number of times - leaving a link to the appropriate guideline at the edit summary to clarify any possible doubts. And I already answered that, I don't know why you keep saying I've put PRIMARYTOPIC above SONGDAB, I just cited them for a case in which we have two or more articles, which is still not the case for "I Still Haven't...". If another article with that name was created and then the original article was moved do "... (U2 song)", I wouldn't be so disappointed, but I would if we started "pre-disambiguating" titles based on the supposition that someone might search for a different thing somewhere in the future. And if there are other projects that endorse this oddity, all I can do is regret and respect their decision, as I would regret and accept if this becomes a rule here too. If they are going in a way I don't consider right, I won't simply support it being applied here. Victão Lopes  Fala! 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two answers to your responses above,
 * In respect of, many songs were indeed started as Song (Foo song) and then moved to a more appropriate title. I myself did that a number of times I have to ask, why bother? Here I diverge from IIO, who would want to move Song Title to Song Title (Foo song), which I find equally pointless unless necessary.
 * In respect to PT/SONGDAB you said, "#Same as Mayast. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply here, and a brief discussion can solve any possible controversies." in my response to Unique Song Title which is obviously putting PT above SONGDAB. Obviously if you didn't mean that, or misconstrued, it would remove my major concern in this discussion.
 * Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ad. 2 – I don't see what's the problem. I think Victor Lopes meant that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to a case where one song is more notable than another song with the same title – so that would be the first point of my original reply to your question, where I mentioned "Yesterday" as an example, and later also added "Like I Love You" (to which Victor directly responded). While WP:SONGDAB deals with the way titles should be disambiguated, when this disambiguation is necessary. So it should be used when it's hard to determine which of the songs is most notable, or even with all the less-notable songs that weren't chosen as the primary topic, for example Like I Love You (R.I.O. song). I see it as two different issues. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 21:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly - and only to cases in which the other song is actually covered by a Wikipedia article. In other words: I do not think it is correct to disambiguate articles before there's a technical reason for it. And I am not convinced that not doing so is affecting anyone's Wikipedia experience. Victão Lopes  Fala! 21:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am totally confused. Where in songdab does it reference primarytopic? There is an inherent contradiction between the two guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoje (random section break for ease of editing)

 * Victor
 * First thanks for discussing, really, it's good. You say "I do not think it is correct to disambiguate articles before there's a technical reason for it" - that's what we're discussing. Let's take a specific example, which you invited to do above [I have to say it was difficult to find because your move log shows enormously helpful edits to Wikipedia, congratulations, you have my respect as a massively productive editor] but I did find one:
 * Example: Boratsagdiyev created Hoje (album) 24 September 2009‎, a week later [in the useful and productive routine of cleaning up new articles, again congratulations], you removed "(album)" [again correctly and according to Songdab] and moved Hoje (album) to Hoje with comment "(no need to specify)". At the time no major problem, as I think everyone knows "Hoje" is Portuguese for today, but no other subject like Hoje (magazine) jpg had an article. However in the same year Hoje (Os Paralamas do Sucesso album) 2005, redirect Hoje (Gal Costa album) 2005 was also released - no comparison obviously, a 1st rank band vs a 2nd rank singer. Gal Costa has no fans among en.wp editors (in fact few fans among pt.wp editors too) and has a badly sourced and developed article here. There was also (redirect I just created) Hoje (Taiguara album) 1969. The problem with "Hoje" only really came when Hoje (film) was released. I have just moved Hoje (Os Paralamas do Sucesso album) to a full title, as an illustration of what we're talking about, as it's a very very typical case, far more typical than the U2 example you cited above.
 * Technically it is possible to move an article like Hoje (album) to Hoje, yes.
 * You say "And I am not convinced that not doing so is affecting anyone's Wikipedia experience" - I think differently, I think such moves affect my experience and a friend I was discussing this with on the subway thinks the same. The way reception signal works on my subway line is that basically you get one chance to download/look at a Wikipedia article per stop. If you get the wrong article, you have to wait to the next stop. Having images switched on slows the process, but having images switched on is essential on an Android (for songs/albums at least) because so many are titled like Hoje. It's often impossible to know which of 15 or 20 possible subjects you are getting until it is too late. Which might be okay for those whose mobile providers have unlimited bytes and superfast connectivity but is a real pain for the rest of us. Can I ask do you have a no limits mobile package and good roaming signal? I don't.
 * These guidelines WP:PRIMARYTOPIC WP:DAB were designed for cities and people, not for sub-products of an artist. I don't suppose Taiguara and Gal Costa have many fans these days, so few users will complain to Jimbo if we waste their time and increase their mobile phone bills, but even for Os Paralamas do Sucesso fans it would help Os Paralamas do Sucesso fans to know they have what they're looking for. Example: If I were (for my own example) looking for Get a Life (Stiff Little Fingers album) and the results came up "Get a Life (Stiff Little Fingers album)" I wouldn't think "those b*stards, how dare they put the artist name in brackets, this is the only album" and I wouldn't run in anger to AFD to delete Get a Life (Vice Squad album), I'd just think "Well, thank you Wikipedia, I have found what I wanted" - I wouldn't be upset at the hint that other albums existed.
 * Victor, does that answer your question? Can you now see how misleading and/or mysterious song/album titles might affect someone else's Wikipedia experience" (not yours, mine). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the compliments. This is a very healthy discussion because all of us are going straight to the point, without sarcasm, personal attacks and harshnesses. Which is not that easy after a discussion drags on for that long, many people would simply lose their patience.
 * Look, I really appreciate and understand your concerns about readers - seriously, I'm a journalist in real life so I truly care about how I can make things easier and clearer for people reading my stuff. But hey, I would never AFD an article so that another can get rid of its "(Artist album)"! As I said, I'm just against pre-disambiguations, that's all. No, I don't have unlimited mobile packages, but neither would I die if I didn't find what I was looking for, and nobody should. Remember, there's a whole community of editors that you need to convince in order to have this new naming pattern considered. I don't think we will ever be able to convince each other 'cause we have strong conflicting opinions - but nobody can say we didn't try. I'm just saying I have no other way of explaining my views, English is not my native language, so that already limits me quite a lot. Btw, won't be able to come back here before the next 36 hours. Victão Lopes  Fala! 07:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Victor, That's all good.I'd ｅｘｐｅｃｔ that if such a discussion takes root then it would still　ｔａｋｅ　1-2 years to gradually convince editors of the advantage of a WP SHIPS approach to song titles. But I believe the move to mobiles and tablets makes it necessary to think about seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Victão Lopes. Again it is a useful conversation. Compliments to all involved without exception. Noting that you are a journalist got me thinking about newspaper headlines. A newspaper might have a headline "Celebrity (does something)" because they know the celebrity's name won't sell papers but people might buy the paper to find out the name of the celebrity, but if it is a famous celebrity the headline will be "Named celebrity (does something)." Nor do you ever get a song title without a reference to the artist (headline or text) unless it is a national anthem etc. WP has a different criteria, and that is to get readers (and not necessarily editors!) to the page they want and bean-counting the statistics does not help as IIO points out. In real life, with few exceptions, we say variants of artist and song/album. We wouldn't start a conversation have you heard "Hoje" without reference to whether we referring to an album or a song and which artist. Why should WP be exempt from normal human communication standards? I also note it is a peculiarity of WP which uses the article name as the URL - something Allmusic Amazon etc don't do! Cheers. Have a great break! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still have to read a large part of this discussion, but I wanted to make a comment on the Wikipedia/newspaper article title comparison. We need to think about what exactly is the subject of the work in question. In case of Wikipedia articles [that we discuss here] the subjects are particular songs/albums, etc., while the newspaper article "Celebrity (does something)" usually discribes the action, something that the celebrity has done – and the article title reflects that. A title with just the celebrity's name might suggest that what you are about to read is the celebrity's biography. Not to mention the fact that newspaper headline must be catchy to get the reader's attention, while an entry name in an encyclopedia has a very different purpose. By the way, I hope I understood you correctly, and you said that in normal conversations you usually give the name of an artist when you want to talk about a song ("We wouldn't start a conversation have you heard "Hoje" without reference to whether we referring to an album or a song and which artist."). Let me turn the question a little: what about films? Do you always mention the director or the year when it was released? —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 12:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make the point of "context" for song article titles. We don't for films because the director isn't, generally speaking, the star of the show (a bit like ambiguating songs by record producer!). BTW You will note that Yesterday (Beatles song) is now the location of the Beatle song. Not necessarily because of songdab, but still now in the right place. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you don't mention the director, then maybe you mention the lead actor? ;) In my experience, usually just the title is enough, as my friends know which films are currently played in theaters, and which one of them I'm talking about. For example, when I say Transcendence, they know that it's the sci-fi film with Johnny Depp, and not the 2012 Chinese concert film. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that songs are pieces of work just as albums, films, books, etc. If the guidelines were to be changed (to which I would oppose), they should be equally changed for all these groups of articles, not just one. So, for example, we should also move Carrie (novel) to Carrie (Stephen King novel), even though there is no other novel of that title on English Wikipedia – according to In ictu oculi, it would make searching for this novel much easier on mobile phones. As for the Beatles, I wrote earlier that a song can stay at "Unique_song_title" if it is the most notable song/article of that name, which should be determined in a discussion. That's exactly what happened with "Yesterday" – the article was moved as a result of a discussion in which users decided that it was no longer the primary topic. So I don't understand what's your point. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 15:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mayast, to be honest yes the WP SHIPS titling philosophy would probably benefit mobile phone users for novels as well. Except that the incidence of "title more notable than author" would rise significantly, authors are not the primary product for books as singers are for songs, and we don't have such a giant imbalance to 2010-2014 ignoring more notable books from 1960-2000. For films I can't see how there is a primary product at all, each film stands on its own merits, a film isn't a byproduct of an artist franchise like a song or album. Sorry I guess I disagree that "songs are pieces of work just as albums, films, books, etc." - not now. They were in the big band era yes, but not today. An album isn't usually standalone from artist either, though more are than songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Other projects (additional sub-heading to help focus the discussion)
There has been much comment regarding “other projects” in this debate and how songs should not differ. Here are some examples variations from other projects. I would think that there is enough there to confirm that, providing that policies are adhered to, then there is absolutely no reason why songs can’t use more practical guidelines suitable for songs. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Plants. Use the scientific name not the common name. i.e. Narcissus jonquilla as opposed to Jonquil which is a disambiguation page. See where the common name Daffodil takes you!. Whether intentional or not, this avoids primary topic.
 * 2) Place Names, Uses a comma rather than brackets to disambiguate.
 * 3) Ships, as already pointed out, are automatically disambiguated by their number, see USS America which is a disambiguation page. Note: This in particular avoids WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
 * 4) Aircraft, as above, plus manufacturers’ name. See Lockheed P-38 Lightning
 * 5) Films are disambiguated by year (not actor/producer/studio). Aagin, avoids PT.
 * 6) And to give you an idea, here is the list of the variations by project. Category:Wikipedia naming conventions.

Current requested moves
Participants in this discussion (or other Project participants) may be interested in several current relevant requested moves for song/album articles: I may have missed a couple. As you can see, the appropriateness of disambiguating songs and albums has been much discussed lately. A lot of the same folks have been contributing over and over (myself included), so it would be good to get fresh perspectives. Dohn joe (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:All_the_Best!
 * Talk:Yesterday
 * Talk:Best..._I
 * Talk:G.U.Y._(song)
 * Talk:Get_Back
 * Talk:1979–1983
 * Talk:1982–2000
 * Talk:1992–2002
 * Talk:A_Collection...
 * @Dohn joe, thanks. FWIW the current song RMs can be seen on the front of the project page  here, which is updated daily. All requested moves can be seen at Category:Requested moves --Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While we're here, just to wrap up with two other points which have been made elsewhere.
 * (1) WP:AT The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.
 * (2) SPECIAL:RANDOM - this shows most articles are actually broadly recognisable: e.g. (1) Charles-Thomas Maillard De Tournon is a French man. (2) John Aston (cricketer) is a cricketer. (3) Geoffrey Pole is an English-speaking man. (4) List of electoral wards in West Yorkshire is what it says, (5) Richard Van Valkenburg is man of Dutch descent (6) Jiangmen Railway Station is a railway station in a town called Jiangmen (7) Oliva sericea is scientific name, probably for a plant [wrong it was a snail] (8) Nick Bacon is a modern era English speaking person (9) The First Men in the Moon is a work of literature or possibly film [it was the former], (10) University of Kansas Natural History Museum is what it says. (11) Parks in St. Louis is what it says, (12) Amadou Bakayoko is a Western African, (13) The Carnival Band (folk group) is what it says, (14) Clarissa Parish is an English-speaking person, (15) 23rd Infantry Division (United States) is what it says, (16) Billie Sol Estes is an English speaking person of hispanic descent. (16) Palazzo Corsini is a building in Italy, (17) Halfback (American football) is a description of the role, (18) Bernard J. Ray is an English speaking person, (19) CAC Ceres either some kind of machine or institution at a place called Ceres, if guessing probably a plane or motorbike [it was a plane], (20) Richard Parkes English speaking person. (21) Iain McChesney likewise, (22) Operation Ivory Coast military operation, guessing Africa but may be a codename [it was Vietnam], (23) Bromelia laciniosa latin name, guessing a plant [it was], (24) Kelvin Valley Railway what it says, (25) Global Legal Information Network (26) Liam Walsh (hurler) (27) Zhiten, Dobrich Province place in Eastern Europe (28) Drumroll, Please media product, guessing a film [close, it was a TV episode] (29) Viti Levu either a bio or place, guessing somewhere in Asia [largest island of Fiji, should have known that] (30) Randevyn difficult, probably a place [wrong, rapper].
 * Okay, the point of that exercise was that out of 30 random titles 25 are easily identifiable broadly. The other 5 are identifiable to those in the field. Almost all of them are more identifiable than an artist-less song title. Of the 30 the only 1 that is ridiculous is which was moved from Drumroll, Please (How I Met Your Mother) to without the context - probably the most anti-user area of titling on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammy Award templates
Suddenly a raft of less important Grammy Awards templates are being created. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling all genre gurus
Is "indie-flavoured electronica best described as indie rock-influenced electronica, or indietronica? Adabow (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be best to just quote the author. pedro &#124; talk 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 year end charts?

 * Did I find my way to the Finnish yearend charts at http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/vuosimyynti/2013/ ?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a Polish yearend chart http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/sklepy/index.php ?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved the discussion to WT:CHARTS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Music video modeling roles
When a model becomes the subject of a music video, I noticed that the role is described as "Principle" in some resumes. Others say "Dancer/Model". What is correct? for a music video chronology table with a column for role?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Life Is Better With You -- song by Michael Franti
I noticed that there is an entry for an older song with this title but not the new song by Michael Franti. I'm not really into editing Wikipedia but thought someone who does do editing would like to know. Just FYI. 50.39.121.52 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Using certification icons on Template:Certification Table Entry
There is a current discussion on whether or not the certifications should be used on the Template:Certification Table Entry. Erick (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sites with free images
can somebody please help me find free use of an image for the song cover of "Hella Hoes" by ASAP Mob.? I cant find the image on any free use site (could you also provide some websites that have free images?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camcamhamham (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the image copyrighted? If so, you'll never find a free version. Victão Lopes  Fala! 16:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're planning to post it on the respective article's infobox, then you don't need a 'free use' image. A copyrighted image will, in most cases, comply with the Wikipedia fair use guidelines. If the song doesn't have an article, please don't upload the cover. Thank you,  pedro  &#124; talk  00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You)
Renaming discussion is taking place. --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ral


The article Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ral has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Seems to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:NSONG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 198.23.5.73 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting. :) I think it does meet WP:NSONG and have contested, adding a little bit, but unfortunately I don't have enough time to add in all the references. They're all easily found on Allmusic. Of course, if you disagree, your next step would be WP:AFD. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Shutterbug
Shouldn't this 'Shutterbug' page be on Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia. It talks about a term in particular and is not a very notable song as such. No other details are included anyway. Surprisingly, though the piece was quite informative, it's a new addition to the English language as not many reputed Dictionaries have included it as yet. So keeping it under Wiktionary would make more sense.

AnnieAnanya (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Annie


 * It's a disambiguation page, to allow users who type "Shutterbug" into the search field to find what they're looking for. Someone could be looking for the photography term, the song by Veruca Salt, the song by Big Boi, the Pixar images, or the novel "Shutterbug Follies". While most of these do not have independent articles, a user looking for "Shutterbug" will hopefully be able to find something related to what they're looking for through this page. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Heat of the Summer
Shouldn't this song by included. I couldn't remember the title so came here to look for it but couldn't find it. Not sure what city this is about, but a song about the Detroit riot by Gordon Lightfoot, Black Day in July, made me remember Phil sang a similar song. I have vague memories of those days, the daily body count announced on the TV every night still haunts and I lived in the country, so the riots in the cities didn't strike me as being as terrible as they were as they might now. But that was a terrible time.

So it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.196.189 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Love You like a Love Song
Page move discussion still ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Carry On Wayward Son‎‎"
An anon has been repeatedly adding a Gwar version to the "Carry On Wayward Son‎‎" article, but there's no discussion of it in the article, although the anon has been adding a link to Loudwire, http://loudwire.com/gwar-play-hilarious-cover-of-kansas-carry-on-my-wayward-son/ and a link to YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIl7d1VVwOc to support its notability. Could someone please either write a paragraph about the cover version, or explain to the anon why it's not really appropriate (or my why it is)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception sections in music articles
I've started a discussion at the featured article candidates talk page about critical reception sections in music articles which members of this Wikiproject may be interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:Hello Kitty (Avril Lavigne song) -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of I Hope You Find It
I Hope You Find It, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Music videos by filming location
HI I created this. Feel free to begin a detailed series of categories of music video filming locations. The UK could be split by county/city and have categories like Category:Music videos shot in Manchester. might be interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nothing Broken But My Heart
Discussion still intact; join in. --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What Makes a single?
FWIW, there is a discussion on what Makes a single on our sister project. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles chronology
Please, check my topic here. --188.135.197.238 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you want us to see Talk:Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song) and comment on your opinion that Wikipedia is too US-centric. As a Canadian I disagree with you. US sales charts are made no more important on Wikipedia than any other sales charts. If you wish to make similar templates for other artists or other charts, feel free too, but don't remove material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , i think the IP's original link was correct; yours is showing up red. were you trying to link to something else or just clarifying what the anonymous user was trying to request input on? ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 23:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Song: "I'm a Survivor"
The current text states that the protagonist of the song is caring for her premature child, but the lyrics state that she was premature: "I was born three months too early The doctors gave me thirty days"

The lyrics that mention her kids don't say anything about them being premature: "A single mom who works two jobs Who loves her kids and never stops With gentle hands and a heart of a fighter I'm a survivor"

A consistent theme throughout the song is that she faces adversity without giving up, no matter how hard things get.

All lyrics quoted from 71.46.65.22 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i've the text of the page in the lead and composition section. the PopMatters article cited on the page for the song makes reference to the theme of the song as you put it, so i went off that. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Songs articles that would be affected by this action are these: If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Songs' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Music of Final Fantasy IV

R U Professional peer review
I've started a peer review for the WP:GA quality article, R U Professional.

Comments to help further improve quality would be appreciated, at Peer review/R U Professional/archive1.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Let's Hear It for the Boy (song)
Page move proposed; discuss it there by clicking above. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Raining Men (song)
Third page move proposal discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Maybe You're Right
This received no commentary during its first week and has been relisted.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 06:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

My dreams are getting better all the time
This song was published in 1944 and Marion Hutton sang the song in the 1944 Abbott and Costello picture "In Society". It was also a feature song of Gracie Fields when she toured Australia and New Zealand. DL Hewitt (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Lyrics websites
Is there is list of acceptable external lyrics databases to link to? More specifically, is http://www.lyricsondemand.com/ properly licenced, as this anon claims? Adabow (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MetroLyrics is used frequently on WP, although a number of problems with their site have been identified. With LyricsOnDemand, the user may "Add/Correct Lyrics".  They also have lyrics to Led Zeppelin songs, without any attribution to the songwriter(s) (many LZ songs have cowriters listed because of copyright problems, but this is not reflected).  I wouldn't expect this from a properly authorized/licensed service. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Authorship of Hymn "Blood-Washed Pilgrim"
The author of the hymn, "Blood-washed Pilgrim" is listed as John Matthias, but a song bearing striking similarities was authored by Russell Kelso Carter, who also wrote "Standing On The Promises". He wrote it in the mid-late 1880s. Are these the same songs? Did Kelso use Matthias' song? The information on both versions can be found at this site below, along with scanned copies of both songs (Matthias' hymn is a separate search).

http://www.hymnary.org/person/Carter_RK

Brainscrub (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Brainscrub

TFAR notification
I've nominated a WP:FA article related to this project for WP:TFAR consideration as Today's Featured Article, please see discussion at Today's featured article/requests/Irreplaceable. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Zai na yaoyuan de difang
Page move is requested; comment there. --George Ho (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Songs articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps this could be linked from the project page? ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 04:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Need additional opinions regarding songwriters
An editor recently removed songwriters from the writer category tree without input from anyone, thus some other opinions are needed in order to develop a consensus. Please see the discussion here: Category talk:Songwriters. Your project is the only one with a tag on the related Songwriter article. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Start-Class without an option of expanding
Hi. I do not understand the "rating" of an article I wrote for German Wikipedia and which a friend translated to English. Talk:All for the Beatles. What does it mean and how can this be helpful for whom? The article is complete, there are no furter information known about this song. --Krächz (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * there were some problems with the English in the article, which i have mostly corrected, but the references should probably also be converted into English to make them more clear and thorough. below Good Article, an assessment of quality is mainly just one editor's opinion on the depth of an article. it isn't really a "rating" system so much as a good way for other editors to categorize and then find articles that need attention, and so that WikiProjects can evaluate their progress in certain areas. if you don't agree with an assessment, it is okay to just leave a request for re-assessment here on this page! (some other WikiProjects have other pages dedicated to that purpose) ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 00:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the corrections. The rating as "start" shows the other editors who are looking for "articles that need attention" that they could expand it. But there are no further information to find. The article is as complete as an article about this song can be. I think the rating is misleading. (and also not very motivating for editors like me to get an "start"-hint after researching, writing, label scanning and uploading and translation). --Krächz (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone who has been going through Category:Unassessed song articles this week, I'd say yeah it's pretty subjective at times. I check for proper referencing, infobox, depth of coverage (some full prose paragraphs are always nice) and maybe as a rule of thumb, enough sections to warrant a TOC. Songs are always iffy because sometimes there's not much to write about a 3-minute song anyway. Also, anyone can change my assessment at any time, and I do give C-class ratings if it fulfills all of my conditions that I mentioned (usually not B-class - those have probably already been assessed). &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is subjective, but worth remembering that these are song articles and without something about the song - rather than the single, chart performance etc they can only be stubs, irrespective of how high it charted! Thanks for your great help. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

clarify WP:SONGCOVER please
Does this policy pertain to discussion of a rendition only, or does it extend even to mentioning a rendition in a list? ⌘ ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SONGCOVER is neither a policy nor a guideline and has been interpreted in different ways. The actual wording uses discussion: "discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article, but only if ..."  Since WP:NSONGS #3 includes songs "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" as a factor that may suggest notability, mentioning them in some way would seem appropriate.  Recent GA reviews have recommended that these be limited to those that have charted or a reliable source has at least mentioned as having some importance.  However, these renditions may have been treated by a RS as separate subjects or less than actually establishing independent notability. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is your opinion in the context of the link given above? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone could have a valid objection to including a cover that charted which is referenced. But maybe add some text "Dutch pop singer Elize recorded a cover version of the song with producer X. It was released as a single in September 2008 and reached number 11 on the Dutch Charts, which tracks pop singles. Her rendition is included on her second album More Than Meets the Eye" or a review to fill it out (also since there's only one item, a bulleted list is unneeded). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my edit you show in your link. The instructions at WP:SONGCOVER represent project consensus, not Wikipedia's hard-and-fast policy. Yet the consensus of this active project has a carrying power which is unwise to ignore or contravene. Certainly a charting cover version can be listed, but there should be some reference supporting the chart position. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Genre of this song...?
All I want to ask for now is the genre of the songs My Way and Boiler by Limp Bizkit ?? Is it Nu Metal or Rap Rock or Rap Metal or a combination of any two of these genres or all three at once ?? Please help me out.....  DtwipzB Talk 14:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You can just list all three genres, if you feel the songs may fall in any of them. However, the best thing to do if you are in doubt is to search for sources that may have attributed a genre to said songs and then cite those references. Victão Lopes  Fala! 16:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because of the guideline at WP:V, you must find sources which support any genre you are introducing to an article. This is not an opportunity to assess the song on your own and determine the genre according to your own appreciation of it—that would be a violation of WP:No original research. So Victor's advice to "search for sources" is the only correct answer. I can tell you that I searched and found nobody assigning a firm genre to "My Way" by Limp Bizkit. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering my query. I will do a original research of mine, and try to determine the genre(s) of the songs.  DtwipzB Talk 13:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Digital/download charts, and more
Hi. I'm looking for a little guidance establishing notability for songs in South Korea. Pretty much every song released in Korea charts on at least one version of the primary national chart in that country, Gaon. (There was Billboard chart for about three years but it has folded.) Thus, according to Wikipedia's notability requirements, every song, no matter how minor, qualifies for an article. We have a huge glut of articles of what are realistically non-notable songs, and I could use some clarification with the following scenarios: So in the end, we have a gazillion songs that all claim notability, because charting on a major national chart is the only notability requirement for songs, as far as I can tell. Yet these are songs that pretty much no one ever heard other than hardcore fans. This is genre filled with very passionate, very inclusionist editors, so they take those requirements entirely literally when justifying these articles. I'm going to post this over at the record charts Wikiproject for their perspectives also. Thanks for any guidance. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It takes physical sales of less than 800 units -- in a affluent country with a population of over 50 million -- to reach the top 20 of Gaon's sales charts. That gives you an idea of just how few units must sell in order to reach a spot of 100 or so.  Literally, an artist's friends and family buying the record alone can net the song notability on Wikipedia.  This surely isn't the intent of Wikipedia.
 * A significant number of songs are released only as digital singles. Some do very well, but many barely scrape onto the Gaon digital chart and/or downloads charts, these songs also technically meet notability requirements with even a tiny number of sales.
 * When albums are released in digital form (as well as physical), every song is available for purchase separately. So if someone buys every song on the album, all the songs on the album hit the digital and/or download charts, making (by Wikipedia standards) every single song on the album notable.
 * Per WP:NSONGS, merely charting does not make a song appropriate for a separated article: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". I personally tend to be as flexible as possible when applying that criteria, but an article composed solely of basic information and a table of charts does not seem appropriate for me. Victão Lopes  Fala! 06:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks so much for your perspective. It really helps to get some POVs from outside the rather insular Korean pop world. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I want to know if it also applies for music band as well. I just nominated this article for deletion Articles for deletion/High4 (band). The band seems to only has one song so far, but some editors are saying that the song has been charted so it passes notability. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BAND, unlike WP:SINGLE, does not mention anything regarding the size of an article, so I guess bands can be granted articles even if charting is their only notable achievement. The main problem with High4 (band) is that is is totally unsourced, and it's imperative that this is fixed if that article is kept. Victão Lopes  Fala! 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

blue bayou song
talking about versions, the colombian singer luz aída made a castilan' one about 1980 known as "solo estás tú" (only you are) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertogestor (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Link to music video in infobox and/or external links
I notice that many articles have used the "misc" field of the single infobox to include a link to the music video (on artist's official youtube, no copyright violations). Is this appropriate? Is it appropriate to link to the music video in the external links section? I saw some old discussion on this subject but wanted to know if I'd missed any recent changes. It impressed me as being a little bit WP:PROMO, so I thought I'd ask for an opinion here. Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't see it as promotional at all. Like, we're just linking it, and a good article on a single always contains a section covering its music video, so I guess it's quite helpful to have a link pointing to it. Just like we always have the official website of a company linked in the infobox, and so on. I didn't follow any discussion on this topic, so I don't know how the community as a whole reacts to it. Victão Lopes  Fala! 06:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

David Gray, The One I love Video
When this song was first released with video, it was a much different video than the one that now accompanies it. The original video had a combat theme with a soldier's flashbacks. Why was it changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.133.67 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute re:use of List of best-selling singles and singer-songwriter
A user is disputing the use of the term "one of the best-selling singles of all-time" on Talk:Meghan Trainor, a term used widely among GA-class song articles as well, such as Poker Face (Lady Gaga song), ...Baby One More Time, Bad Romance, Just the Way You Are (Bruno Mars song), Waka Waka (This Time For Africa) among many others. The user feels that it is WP:OR and WP:PEACOCK to use the term without a source that directly refers to the song as "one of the best-selling singles of all-time" irregardless of if it features on the List of best-selling singles or not. On the same page the use of the term singer-songwriter is also being disputed. Comments will be appreciated at Talk:Meghan Trainor. - Lips '' are movin 21:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor he's referring to is me. Lips and another editor, User:MaranoFan insist on keeping the phrase "one of the best selling singles of all time" in articles relating to Meghan Trainor and the song All About That Bass.  The phrase is used by no reliable source that I can find.  Using it solely because the song has done well and is on a list somewhere does not make it officially one of the best selling singles of all time.  Using the phrase without a supporting source is original research, synthesis, and borders on peacock language. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  22:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * After writing the above, it occurred to me that the comments left by Lips would be considered canvassing, as well as my response above. I am striking my comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:CANVASS before throwing accusations and warnings around. I removed the section because your responses are clearly attention-seeking, disruptive and a platform for drama. Your editing is currently being discussed at WP:ANI - please feel free to discuss your personal issues there and not on article talk pages that have nothing to do with it. - Lips '' are movin 05:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I made an unintentional error in removing your new comments here, Lips, and for that I apologize. Regardless, you cannot intentionally remove talk page comments.  And canvass does apply in this situation - even if loosely.  There is an article talk page discussion where consensus is the goal and you came here and the other talk page to get others to support your side of the discussion.  Isn't supposed to be done.  Further, your personal attacks need to stop.  As other editors have been telling you for days now, talk about edits, not editors.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  07:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you have personal issues, consult the WP:ANI instead of throwing warnings and accusations around, and disrupting editing across several articles and talk pages. Your 14 reverts in the last 24 hours speak for themself. Thank you. - Lips '' are movin 07:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said, stop talking about editors and start talking about edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue in all these disputes you are involved in is you, yourself as an editor, you remain ignorant and edit war to any discussion regarding editing, not only on Meghan Trainor articles but several others as well hence why you as an editor have been reported by a number of users on WP:ANI. Time to stop contradicting and abusing Wikipedia policies and playing the victim. - Lips '' are movin 07:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to ask for input on Wikiprojects, it is not canvassing. WV is correct that such statement need to be cited, with a reliable source. Lapadite (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice on AFDing tons of song articles
Hello. There are many, many articles for Korean pop songs. As with most songs, most do not meet notability guidelines, even though they may have been hits. A few have been AFD'd and have had to be relisted many times due to few comments or high levels of fancommenting. It's been a real fight and pretty unpleasant. Even big hits have virtually no information published about them, and most sections recommended on the MOS for this project are left blank. The articles can never realistically become anything more than personnel and chart listings, and maybe a description of the music video. This is, of course, compounded by a lack of reliable sources in English, but honestly, Korean pop is a commercial entity, not an art, so no one writes about chord structures even (especially) in Korean. Given that multiple groups have maybe 10 or 12 non-notable song articles apiece and the difficulty of persuading kpop fans that most songs are not notable, does anyone have advice for getting these articles successfully and succinctly AFD'd? As long as they stay, editors think it means every new song deserves an article and continue to create articles for every new song, too. Thank you for any advice. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * have you tried just WP:PROD? if the AfDs have not seen much opposition, it might be a good route for those articles that are clearly non-notable. i'm sure there are some boderline cases that would benefit from discussion, but by the same token i'm sure there are many that could be uncontroverially deleted. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 05:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's kpop. Kpop fans believe someone's favorite color is encyclopedic, every fart a kpop artist makes is a notable and world-impacting event, and Wikipedia rules are for chumps.  So, in short, there is resistance. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * haha, that's too bad. unfortunately, i can't offer much more advice. best of luck! ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 05:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Cry Me a River
Interested editors are invited to discuss whether or not there should be a primary topic for "Cry Me a River". Talk:Cry Me a River. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging song articles
Hello. I'm a member of WP:KOREA and I'm in the process of merging a bunch of song articles with their relevant album or EP articles. I'm not a member of WP Songs, but if no one has an objection, I will change the "class" field on the WP Songs talk page tag to "redirect" as I'm adding the "this article was merged to..." template. I'd been just deleting them but another editor re-added the tag with that class change, so upon advice from another editor I will do that instead. Please let me know if you'd prefer I take some other action instead. Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

SONG: YOUR SO VAIN
During a program on David Steinberg, popular comedian from the 1960's and 1970's I was interested to find that he was a neighbor to Carly Simon and a sister. During which, according to the program that they became close. It was early in both careers but the friendship remains to this day. During an interview for the program Simon somewhat describes aspects of the "Your So Vain" character being similar to the way Steinberg acted at that time being high sought out from many females leaving Simon to be somewhat of a "wingman". I think the Wiki article for one the missing persons is David Steinberg21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx317 (talk • contribs)

can some one add the lyrics and a clip?
could someone add the Lyrics of the song Elan by Nightwish to its page? and if anyone can, could someone add a clip to the song's page as well?
 * We cannot add music lyrics to Wikipedia because most are protected by copyrights. What we can do is to add a link to this song's lyrics at MetroLyrics, but only under certain circumstances, and I just checked that "Élan" is still unable to be linked. As for the clip, again, we cannot add it directly, the best we can do is to add a link to the clip at YouTube or other similar websites, as long as it is a clip posted by the official band's or label's channel. I'll do it now. Victão Lopes  Fala! 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ah ok. I thought the clip might be a copyright problem, but i didn't know that the lyrics might be copyrighted, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGA314 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Popdust.com for reviews
I've seen Popdust used as a source for song/album reviews (e.g. On the Rocks (Nicole Scherzinger song) and Trouble (Iggy Azalea song)). Is this website a valid source for reviews? Jacques Peterson is called a "famous U.S. music critic" here, but KpopStarz isn't exactly a reliable source. Random86 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)