Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 17

Need article for "My Silent Love"
The song "My Silent Love" has no article -- is there someone who could create one? (It's a bit beyond my current ability.)

Some seed info:

Music by Dana Suesse, lyrics by Edward Heyman.

Used in the following movies: The Uninvited (1944); played on BBC radio when Roderick spends his first night at Windward. A Place in the Sun (1951); played at the party where George meets Angela. Sabrina (1954); played at the outdoor party. There are a few YouTube postings; unfortunately the version with Bonnie Poe (as Betty Boop) and Bela Lugosi has been pulled.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

When to use an Infobox; and when to omit
Hi there, I recently completed an edit of Waltzing Matilda by adding infobox song and made a range of minor changes. My edit was reverted with the comment: "....It is my understanding that tradtional folk ballads like this one are not given infoboxes (see Auld Lang Syne, Wind that shakes the barley...." May I please receive some guidance on whether the claim by this editor is correct? Many thanks Rangasyd (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it many traditional songs, certain writers, (Cole Porter and the Gershwins come to mind) were added to Wikipedia before songboxes were created, which may leave the impression that older songs do not need infoboxes. Where there is no infobox for a song I have been adding needs-infobox-y to the WPSongs project tag. FWIW, a number of traditional songs now have infoboxes and it is my opinion that the removal was wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why they shouldn't have infoboxes, although obviously for these sort of songs a large proportion of the fields in our song infobox will not apply since those fields don't actually relate to songs at all. --Michig (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A case-by-case discussion may be either calm or heated. Talk:Government of the Republic of China is an example of calm discussion. However, Talk:Stanley Kubrick is full of heat and exhaustion. Careful starting one. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on whether they "are" given infoboxes, but I'll answer a solid yes to whether they "should" be given infoboxes. Since infoboxes are merely summaries of critical information (in particular, significant metadata) about the subject, articles about specific topics (as opposed to articles about general concepts, e.g. Parity of zero or Screened porch) should have infoboxes, since it's easy to ascertain specific types of metadata that will be applicable to most or all articles of the sort.  Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been writing articles on folk songs. I've put infoboxes in some articles (because a bot suggested I should), but many of the fields don't apply. I've taken to putting index numbers (Child, Roud and Laws) in "misc" as the software won't let me modify other sections. Joe Fogey (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , this might be an alternative. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation of redirects
The table below is a list of redirects pointing to X (Kylie Minogue album). Those marked article were created as articles, but are now redirects. The rest were created by the same person, on the same day, as redirects. A few other editors who are creating wholesale redirects in this manner. I have noticed creation of alternative spelling and variants (often xxx, xxx (song) and xxx (artist song), creating a single redirect for each song on the album (including unreleased and rumoured songs), and some who are creating every conceivable redirect possible, i.e. Nu-di-ty above. There are two issues here, namely :- --Richhoncho (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Should redirects be created on purpose? Should WP Songs and appropriate projects have guidelines on the matter?
 * 2) Do duplicate redirects from alternatives constitute clutter and therefore unhelpful?


 * In my view we should only have redirects for likely search terms that are covered in the album articles, e.g. names of singles taken from an album, songs from the album that have gone beyond being ordinary album tracks for some other reason, or from song articles that have been merged to the album, where we have to keep them to preserve history. Redirects with disambiguated titles as many of those above have should not be created as they are implausible search terms, nor should we have redirects from titles of unremarkable album tracks, or mis-spellings. --Michig (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe there was already a consensus somewhere that basically, redirects for every song of an album shouldn't be created automatically like that. I think they're only supposed to be created if there's a particular reason you'd think they'd be searched out. (Being a single, charting, appearing on a movie soundtrack or television show, etc.) Sergecross73   msg me  16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lists of top 10 singles (UK)
I have been working on the lists for top 10 UK singles of each year, expanding them into comprehensive articles. I have included a section with a list of all artists making their top 10 debut in each year, either as lead or featured artist. Solo artists with debut singles who have had previous success with bands are not included in the table but are noted separately.

The issue I have is on charity singles like those by The X Factor finalists. For example Joe McElderry reached number one with the X Factor finalists before his own debut single The Climb, so he has two entries in List of UK top 10 singles in 2009. This was also the chart debut for several other acts (Jedward and Olly Murs) so when they made their solo debut I have not included them again in the table and have put them in the notes section instead.

Because of this I have had to include the other finalists from each year in the table (e.g. Wagner, 2 Shoes and Johnny Robinson), even though they are not credited individually. Is this the right approach or should the act simply be "The X Factor Finalists..." with Joe McElderry/Alexandra Burke/Little Mix/Matt Cardle etc. having their official debut put down as their first solo release. The charity singles are included on their discographies.

Any feedback welcome and hope this makes sense, look at List of UK top 10 singles in 2009 to see what I mean. 03 md  12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hard work. There are many redirects and some link to disambiguation pages. There are no sources. Those are my only concerns. As a suggestion, it would have been better to have placed this on a sandbox page and pointed us to it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. This is still a work in progress and the articles for other years (especially 2002, which I have put up for peer review), are well referenced. What are your thoughts on my question re. X Factor contestants/artists on charity singles being credited individually? 03  md  15:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"List of songs by X musician" criteria
Is there any sort of objective/specific criteria as to when its appropriate to have these "List of songs by musician x" type articles? I see them pop up at AFD now and again, and I never quite know how address them. I mean, there seems to be a loose agreement that something like List of Beatles songs is acceptable, and something like a "List of Trapt songs" would probably be unnecessary, because there's comparatively few notable songs throughout the band's career. (Looks like about 7 out of 70 - roughly 10%.) But most musicians probably fall somewhere in between the extreme and obvious cases.

Are there any criteria? Should we decide on some? I think its a good idea. Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me  17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * LISTN already addresses this, notability is met by significant coverage of the list's members "as a group or set". James (talk/contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These are just my thoughts about it, and I am still very inexperienced with Wikipedia so take my comments with a huge grain of salt. Whenever I look at these lists, I would look more at the size of the artist's or band's output rather than ranking or counting how many notable songs or singles they have released. For instance, I recently put together a featured list for that of List of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano. I do not believe any of her individual songs or singles would pass Wikipedia's notability standards (some of them charted, but none of them received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources), but her career received coverage and she recorded enough material (roughly four albums worth of material) to put together a list. I would contrast this case with List of songs recorded by Nicola Roberts, which I nominated for AfD a while back with the verdict being "delete". In that case, the artist only put out one album, and a handful of b-sides, so there was no value for making this type of list for her as a reader would only need to refer to the article about her album to see a bulk of the songs that she recorded. In short, I would suggest looking at the total output of an artist's work, and if they released multiple projects or albums, then they would most likely be qualified to have this kind of list. I would also imagine ideally the lead for the list would used to discuss the artist's genre and sound throughout their career, as I did in my Alyssa Milano example. Again, this is just my two cents so feel free to disregard it. I look forward to hearing people's feedback on this, especially since I have created this type of list in the past. Thank you for bringing this up for discussion, as I feel this will be a beneficial point to talk about and get some sort of consensus. And thank you for pointing to that James. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is closer in line to my thoughts on it. Perhaps a certain number of notable albums? Or notable songs? Or ratio of notable songs to notable albums? Even if we just had some bare minimums or something. So we could say "Look, this artist has 2 albums, 25 songs, and only 3 notable singles with articles. It shouldn't have a list because we require a minimum of 4 albums to warrant a list. Or 50 songs. Or 7 notable singles. Or a ratio of 20% of the singles being notable. Just brainstorming, but something like that. Much like some of the points in WP:NBANDS or how we have the rule that associate acts in infoboxes require 2 members in common
 * Thank you for your response. I am honestly not sure exactly how to best approach this. I think some sort of standard or minimum would be an excellent idea, but I would leave that to the more experienced Wikipedia users. I greatly appreciate you for taking the time to respond to this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I'm aware of LISTN, but I don't think that's quite helpful in these particular instances. I mean, the cross-section here is "musicians" and "their songs". What notable musical artist isn't going to have sourcing for such a scope? Collecting a few simple track-by-track album review from an RS would be able to source a list in that case. Sergecross73   msg me  19:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we should set the bar very high for this type of list, generally, but the qualifications are going to differ depending on whether an artist is active. For instance, someone who's currently enjoying huge commercial success might well merit a "Songs by" list after three albums and accompanying singles, or maybe just two albums. Yet a band/artist from decades back that had a long, long recording career, with some commercial success along the way, may well not – otherwise, we end up with columns filled with unlinked songs that appeared on minor releases long after the act had a few hits early in their career (reflecting the sort of song-notability percentage rate you're pointing to, Serge). I agree that ideally there should be some sort of criteria laid out, but it's tough to pinpoint what. I imagine there's always going to be a need for discussion about each list more often than not.
 * The only "List of songs by" I've looked at in any detail is that one for the Beatles, which is absolutely riddled with problems. [There, info in the Songwriter(s) column enters into controversial territory because we're stating as fact that Beatle A wrote a song alone, or "with" Beatles B, when reliable sources (not to mention the band members) have failed to agree on such points; the Notes column also seems to be an invitation to add waffle.] So, no doubt unduly influenced by the problems there, my concern is that these lists can become magnets for trivia, original research, and undue weight. JG66 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should Infobox song and Infobox album be merged?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the last RFC, which ended with a consensus to merge Infobox song and Infobox single, there was discussion about creating a merged album/track/single infobox as a contrast to, which is used for traditional songs and classical pieces.

With regards to the separation of Infobox album and Infobox song, two significant points were raised:
 * Singles are not defined as "single songs" — they may consist of multiple tracks, just like an album or EP.
 * Both infoboxes share most parameters, just like and : Name, Cover, Caption, Artist, Released, Recorded, Studio, Venue, Genre, Length, Label, and Producer.

Note: This RfC is purely for consolidating the two templates, not removing one in favor of the other. If the elements that are exclusive to Albums (just three or four parameters) were added to the Songs infobox, there would be no perceptible changes, as in, readers wouldn't notice if Album was redirected to Songs. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey
to reply to me 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — No reason to have two identical templates that share almost all of the same parameters. The attached infobox demonstrates how similar they are.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – most parameters are identical. If necessary single or song (or similar) could disable certain parameters. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Comment. Album titles are in italics (automatically done by the template), and song titles are not. wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Are album articles still supposed to have italic titles? That doesn't seem to be working. There have been some recent changes to the template. wbm1058 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now fixed, sorry about that. I assume this could be done automatically based on the type of composition, but this would be slightly more inefficient. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Oppose They only share 16 parameters. (editor's note: they will share 21 out of 35 after the song/single merge --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Parameters that are the same (capitalization excepted):
 * alt
 * artist
 * caption
 * cover
 * genre
 * label
 * language
 * length
 * misc
 * name
 * producer
 * recorded
 * released
 * studio
 * type
 * venue
 * Unique to infobox album (editor's note: I've crossed out parameters that are going to be merged to Infobox song anyway --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC))
 * compiler
 * director
 * italic_title
 * longtype
 * Unique to infobox song
 * album
 * composer
 * english_title
 * ep
 * format
 * iswc
 * lyricist
 * published
 * writer
 * written
 * While it's easy enough to merge them, the more complicated we make the template, the likely it will be for editors to use them correctly. When we add the unique fields for infobox single in, it would become even more problematic. Editors usually get group and individual performer fields wrong in infobox musical artist, this would become truly problematic. Convince me that it won't and I'll change my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See below --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not convinced that parameters not appropriate to one context won't be misused in that context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would it matter if the parameters are misused if they're disabled by switches? FYI by "see below", I meant to .--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't, but what sort of rigorous testing of the parameters will exist? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the exact code is, but: " ". That's just one example. Another would be " ".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, "Editors usually get group and individual performer fields wrong in infobox musical artist" ... In 10 years of using Wikipedia, I've NEVER seen this occur. If the average editor was as incompetent as you seem to believe they are, then it'd be a wonder how we got to using infoboxes at all. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not convinced that parameters not appropriate to one context won't be misused in that context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would it matter if the parameters are misused if they're disabled by switches? FYI by "see below", I meant to .--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't, but what sort of rigorous testing of the parameters will exist? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the exact code is, but: " ". That's just one example. Another would be " ".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, "Editors usually get group and individual performer fields wrong in infobox musical artist" ... In 10 years of using Wikipedia, I've NEVER seen this occur. If the average editor was as incompetent as you seem to believe they are, then it'd be a wonder how we got to using infoboxes at all. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Walter. I supported the single/song merge because they're so similar, especially with the lines blurring between the two in the modern era of music. Not the case with albums. Sergecross73   msg me  02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Not the case for albums"? Really?
 * Uh, not sure you're getting my point here. I'm saying, in this age, it's harder and harder to determine whether or not a song is a single, promotional single, or just a random song revealed to promote an album. Are you insinuating it getting hard to identify whether or not a body of work is a song or an album? Sergecross73   msg me  20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to songs. If you look directly below this text, you'll see a common example where the difference between a single (not a song) and an album (EP) can be tenuous, so much so that it makes no sense why we have different templates for them. I'd like you to answer the question I asked below rather than shrug it off: are the differences between Grass (a single of three tracks) and Peacebone (an EP of four tracks) so significant that they require different types of infoboxes? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what you're talking about, We're talking about my stance, which explains why I supported the song/single merge, and oppose the merger to the albums one. There's a greater similarity between song/singles that isn't the same when you add albums to the mix. This whole proposal reeks of "providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist". Sergecross73   msg me  23:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're confused or ill-informed, so I'll try to outline the problem as clearly as possible.
 * There are several issues with the way Wikipedia treats music singles. Most of this is due to the common misconception that a "single" is equivalent to "a single (1) song". That myth is supported by the arbitrary setup we've had for Infobox single and Infobox album over the years, and with the merging of Infobox song and Infobox single, the notion becomes all the more exacerbated. This is why it took 10+ years for those two templates to merge.
 * Officially, the only real differences between a single, an album, and an EP is length and # of tracks. The term the music industry uses to tie these concepts together is "Records". A single is a Record containing less than four tracks that's about 3-12 minutes long, whereas an LP is usually longer than 25-30 minutes. Anything in between is considered an EP. Note the examples I've given where the line between an EP and a single is exceedingly thin (Grass, People).


 * This RfC is for reducing template clutter, which not only makes the infobox easier to maintain, but articles as well. For example, in Peacebone, I want to add and EP to its infobox, but I can't, because the current song/single infobox template doesn't let me. The album template would, but then it would read as "an EP and single by Animal Collective", which is the wrong order to phrase it (Peacebone is a single that was expanded to an EP). We can add longtype to Infobox song, sure, but then it begs the question, why do we need two templates that are basically identical?
 * If you still don't have a counterargument for any of these points, then may I ask that you retract your vote?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you may not ask that. This isn't a policy discussion where you can discount one's argument. It's a subjective matter. You feel your changes would simplify and reduce clutter. I don't agree. Stop badgering me. Sergecross73   msg me  14:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm making sure that you know your conclusions are based on fallacies. You seem to be perfectly aware of that fact, otherwise you wouldn't be sidestepping all of my questions. Thanks for the input. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Grass track listing — single
 * Grass
 * Must Be Treeman
 * Fickle Cycle
 * People track listing — EP
 * People
 * Tickwid
 * My Favorite Colors
 * People (Live)
 * Peacebone track listing — EP
 * Peacebone (album version)
 * Safer
 * Peacebone (Black Dice Remix)
 * Peacebone (Pantha du Prince Remix)
 * How do you account for these three? Do you really believe the difference between these two formats is so major that they require different templates?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose too complicated and will lead to many mistakes Atlantic306 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Merging the two templates would be an inconvenience to editors. f  e  minist  02:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree that this will be confusing and difficult.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nonconstructive effects. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Too complicated" — Absolute nonsense.   Two precedents show otherwise:
 * Infobox musical composition — the template documentation contains example usages for "Symphony", "Hymn", and "Song" - the merged template will obviously also include something similar in its documentation - nobody is going to wonder which parameters should be used in which article (for a clearer example of what I mean, see )
 * Infobox person – has dozens of parameters that are only appropriate in certain contexts
 * Even on the rare occasion that an editor might mistakenly input lyricist to an album or italic_title to a track, we could add switches for those events that either disable those parameters or list the article in a maintenance category. This would be dependent on the value of Type. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support creation of Infobox sound recording - I was not in favour of combining "single" and "song" because I believe that singles are sound recordings and songs are musical compositions. Creating a "sound recording" infobox and using it for albums, EPs, singles, recordings of live concerts, bird calls, standup comedy routines, books on tape and all other releases of recorded sound seems like a good idea. There could be a field for type. Title italics  could be programmed from the type parameter or added manually.  However, those articles currently using Infobox single or song which are really about compositions of lyrics and melody rather than one specific arrangement and recording should not be migrated to Infobox sound recording; instead they should be changed to display Infobox musical composition.  A "song" subset example can be added to the Infobox Musical composition documentation. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Per arguments provided above!  livelikemusic    talk!  16:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Walter and others, primarily (also agree with Serge's point about "providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist"). I can't see any benefit at all. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The benefit is in eliminating a redundant template, which makes them easier to maintain. If parameters are added or removed in the future, we don't have to constantly synchronize them. It's the same reason why Song and Single were merged. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment "Infobox sound recording" seems to imply using it for more than music (and as suggested by Anne Delong). For other sound recordings, additional parameters will be needed to make it useful.  This could lead to significantly increasing the size and complexity of the infobox and make it far different from the merged infobox song/single.  Additionally, even calling it "Infobox musical recording" would be a stretch, since Infobox album is also used for video albums (and has a field for director). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked and there are very few articles for "other" sound recordings. I was only able to find 2 (can't remember what they were). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be used in Bird vocalizations, Mating call, Whale sounds, Steam whistle, Foghorn, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ? Those are generic sounds, not recordings.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea is that "sound recordings" is too broad or, as has been suggested, it is seeking to "providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist". —Ojorojo (talk)
 * I still don't understand. The template is for recorded media. Birds and whales don't fall in that category.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Question Are there any other counterarguments? "It makes things too complicated" is the only one posed so far, but in terms of how the template is used, literally nothing would change.
 * 1) You'll still be able to use  or   after it's redirected
 * 2) Misused parameters will be automatically disabled, depending on the input of Type
 * Where's the complicated part?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Redundancy may have been a reason to merge "infobox single" into "infobox song", although "single" and "song" were separate entities until the late 1990s or early 2000s. Parameters were nearly similar to each other, and ones unique to infobox single, like "Chronology" ones, can become part of the "song" infobox. Well, I see "infobox song" and "infobox album" sharing 16 parameters, pointed out by Walter. However, the merged template having 10 parameters that are unique to "infobox song" would be more burdensome to editors. Also, redundancy is not a sufficient reason to merge "infobox song" with "infobox album". Album and song are two different media: album is a collection of songs in one medium, and a song is... a song. Typing in the name of the merged infobox is not easy to memorize as typing either "infobox song" or "infobox album". The parameters related to songwriting, like " " and " "... well, that depends on whoever wrote all songs of an album. However, having a bunch of names of writers/lyrists/composers in a merged infobox about an album would result cluster. Imagine an infobox about a Chinese album, like dandan youqing, and you'll get the message. (Note that I don't use "Track listing" template there due to Chinese characters there.)  Also, switching between any other type and " "/" " in the "Type" parameter may seem simple, but the "Type" parameter in the merged infobox would require more coding to control the formatting of titles, i.e. italicization of titles. BTW, I asked how personal opinions in lieu of applicable rules may influence consensus, and I received insightful responses, especially ones about using "common sense". George Ho (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "...the merged infobox would require more coding" —  is one of the simplest features any coder can implement, so I don't see why that matters. (Sorry for not responding to anything else you wrote, but it seems to be a repetition of points about functionality that I've already responded to repeatedly.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an example that's already been added. The coding is really not a big deal.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to withdraw this RfC for now — Clearly not going anywhere. It was a mistake to do this before the merging of Infobox song and Infobox single was settled. In the future I may try a more detailed proposal that addresses everybody's concerns, including what the Type switch code would actually look like.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How editors won't be confused
This is (roughly) what the post-merge template documentation would look like.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC) {{collapse|

Documentation
WP articles about sound recordings often include an infobox, which provides key facts as discussed in the article. Template:Infobox musical composition and Template:Infobox anthem are also available for other uses.

The code below can be copied and completed with information pertaining to sound recording articles (i.e: albums, tracks, or singles).

Code
Most articles will not need all the following fields; unused fields may be left blank. Please note that adding fields other than those below, such as Concert debut, Recording engineer, etc., will not be displayed.

Example usage 1 - Albums/EPs


Example usage 2 - Songs/Singles
 }}


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replacement of parameters
Unless anyone has objections, the uppercase parameters in transclusions of Infobox single/Infobox song (except ISWC, A-side and B-side) are to be changed to their lowercase counterparts by a bot per MOS:INFOBOX, which states that parameter names should use lower-case unless they are proper nouns; see WP:BOTREQ. This is to be done as part of the merger of the two templates, discussed here earlier. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 07:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Promotional singles"
When it should be used? When the artist release a single on itunes and not to radio, or when they release album tracks ahead of the album release? I don't get the concept, and the media never uses that phrase. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The only situation where it really makes sense is when physical singles are produced specifically to be send to radio stations, etc. for promotion (often to promote albums). --Michig (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Promotional singles can be songs released from an album's preorder or songs available for retail that don't make the album but were released for the album's promotional run. I don't agree with merging song into single because it's going to take forever for people to stop being confused about it and doesn't really do anything beneficial for articles. BlaccCrab (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I always find these charts very interesting. I'm currently baffled as to why ours - the songs chart - currently lists Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte as the number one entry though?? I must be missing something... Sergecross73   msg me  17:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "The title song became a hit for Patti Page, who took it to No. 8..." ? Just a guess. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I caught that too, but...wasn't that a short stint back in the 1960s? Why is it the number one most read song article for April 2017? I kinda figured it'd be...I don't know, a big song by Lady Gaga or The Chainsmokers or someone currently huge at the moment. I know there's plenty of non-recent stuff on that list, but this song doesn't strike me as something like, lets say "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "Free Fallin", that's been "immortalized" through classic radio stations. It's not like it really matters or anything, I just find stats interesting (but bizarre outliers less-so.) Sergecross73   msg me  19:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable parodies
When a song is familiar (and parodied) enough for a parody to be published in a notable source, how should the existence of parodies be mentioned in the song's article? Examples: an especially memorable parody of "There's a Long Long Trail A-Winding" (There's a long long nail a-grinding into the heel of my shoe...) is in my copy of Rise Up Singing, and an Americanized version of "The Road to the Isles" is in that same songbook as well as being featured in Julie (George novel). Can you refer me to guidelines, or at least good examples of how to deal well with parodies? --Egmonster (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes
There are a lot of transclusions of Infobox single which have turned up in Category:Errors reported by Module String (about 1,100, although many of those should be fine now but haven't been updated). Most of these are due to formatting or other errors in the chronology parameters, such as missing quotation marks, missing line breaks before year, missing brackets for year, missing year and having two or more separate singles (not a double A-side) in a parameter. Some of those are due to there being brackets after the song title containing extra information (e.g. "(re-release)", "(with Paul McCartney)"). I'm not sure whether those should be removed, whether re-releases should be counted and so on. Help would be appreciated. (If necessary, the template can always be reverted back to the previous version, although I do think it's better to fix the errors first.) Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 08:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When you boil it down, they're fields with incorrectly formatted information in them that will eventually need to be fixed at some point in the future, so they may as well be done now. I'd jump at it, but I'm a bit tied up with cleaning infobox album. I think the best way to tackle it is a bot run to empty the category of the simple formatting errors, which will then make it easier to spot the more complex and unique cases. As regards re-issues in the chronology, it obviously breaks the chronology (unless the re-issue has its own article, which will be an exceptionally rare occurrence). With a re-issue present the chronology just ends in a loop back. Needs the point raised with the community to point out how silly it is and get them to agree on a "no-re-issues in the chronology" rule. - X201 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say; I like the way that the template handles the formatting of the chronology, meaning the user can just type text and not worry about bold italics etc - X201 (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about asking template editors to create "Module:Infobox song"? That way, displaying information would be easier, and transition would be easier. Right? --George Ho (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thoughts, Frietjes? How about the suggestion I made above? George Ho (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * George Ho, I would suggest taking the really long nested sequence of nested string module calls and put that into a single module. this would also avoid the repeated code between the three positions in the chronology.  I would be happy to help but I would have to first figure out exact what is being accomplished there. Frietjes (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Now I understand, so take your time. I won't rush. :) George Ho (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Images of Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song)
The images of Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song) are taken to Files for discussion/2017 June 1, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is relisted into Files for discussion/2017 June 21. You can comment there while the discussion is still ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA reassessment on HIStory/Ghosts
Hello again. I started Good article reassessment/HIStory/Ghosts/1, a GA reassessment on HIStory/Ghosts. Feel free to improve the article and/or comment at the community GAR. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Covers lists
, If a song article includes a list of cover versions—without any other disucssion—do the covers need to meet the requirements of WP:COVERSONG to be included? The policy reads as though it applies to discussions, and not lists. Is a list assumed to be a form of discussion, or an implied discussion? Tapered (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right that the guideline (not a policy, I think?) refers to discussion of a particular cover version, although I'd say it should be kept in mind, at least, with regard to bulleted lists also. I don't have much experience with lists of cover versions – don't like them much, quite frankly. What I normally do is convert a bullet list into "proper" text, so that there's a clearly defined section discussing the song's popularity with other recording artists and (often more importantly, imo) what these cover versions and alternative interpretations have each added to the song's legacy. In the process, it often means binning a good many covers that don't merit inclusion. That's not to say there won't be some sort of short list of other notable artists who have recorded it. But I'm talking about a single sentence perhaps, and ideally supported by a single reliable source that says "the song has also been recorded by …"
 * I should say, I work mostly on songs by the Beatles or ex-Beatles, where we're entirely spoiled for choice with regard to sources, and many of them discuss or list notable cover versions. So I'm not sure how helpful my experience is to you.
 * I tried to find an example song article and first stop was "Yesterday (Beatles song)" – because, you know, it's been covered by a few people. Although I remember seeing a sentence or two there, years ago, listing some well-known cover artists of the song, I now find it's been removed. So, now, we've got an article in which the lead section says that "Yesterday" has attracted 2200 cover versions, which must obviously have had some bearing on the BMI calculation of over 7 million performances of the song in the 20th century; but, in the main body, the only statement about cover versions is to say that Matt Munro's was the first of many and it was a top ten hit in the UK. That's flippin' ridiculous. I mention this because, while I imagine the list approach you refer to might not be how I'd ever go about it, there is a midpoint, and we should be free to provide a list of notable artists who have covered a song when there's a source saying as much. And if there's a list that requires a source, especially when the song's really well known (perhaps that was the issue at "Yesterday", I don't know), then it should be tagged for a decent period before removal. Otherwise, "Yesterday" being an example, Wikipedia just ends up looking stupid.
 * PS. Didn't actually get your ping – just saw your comment because this page is on my watch list. JG66 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on "guideline." Very thoughtful comment. I'm going to hold off with any more of my comments until, hopefully, one or two other quality posts appear. Yours ought to draw them. Tapered (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In my assessment (repeat, in my assessment) a bullet list is a useful way to present a small to medium amount of information in easily digested form. I see no harm in presenting such information outside of a text discussion, as long as it'd done to further access to information. Personally, I'd limit them to 10 entries, but that's arbitrary. Lengthy lists are designed to overwhelm readers and create (often spurious) significance for the subject of the article. Tapered (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * [moved following 26 June comment]
 * My impression of you is an honest editor, which includes not pushing a fixed, conditioned point of view or acquiring power and prestige. The best definition of a fool I've ever seen is, "Someone trying to be honest with the dishonest." I won't try to edit popular song articles again because any attempt to deal with the rest of the editors below would be foolish indeed, and a waste of my time. Thanks for your thoughts. They were interesting. Tapered (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do believe the implication is that I am amonth the dishonest and a waste of time. Interesting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would rather deal with a recalcitrant steer or ram (not a bull) than deal with you inflexibly adhering to some belief you hold dear. I recalled that you're a Mennonite, so I figure you'll understand the analogy. Tapered (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I did to deserve such a classification either. A question was asked, and I politely gave my two cents on how I usually handle it. It's not like I got stubborn or bossy about it either, nor was the exchange heated or lengthy... Sergecross73   msg me  20:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm wrong. My bad. Tapered (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The same applies to me. I look at each instance of the song and make a judgment call. A song like the one you're referencing would be handled quite differently than "White Christmas" would be. The former has a few covers while the latter has at least a dozen annually.
 * As for the bovine metaphor: I have never lived on a farm so I have no idea what you're talking about, and unless you are apologizing, I'd say WP:STICK it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologize to ...you? ROTFLMAOMF. Tapered (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In past discussions, I don't recall COVERSONG only being applied to text or separate sections within the article. WP articles should provide encyclopedic content and not an indiscriminate collection of information. COVERSONG is an attempt to define what is noteworthy. Seemingly random lists of artists who recorded a particular song may overwhelm articles (particularly those with dozens or hundreds of covers) and detract from the proper focus on the song itself. Renditions should be limited to notable artists and be able to provide more than a name: date, singles chart info, album name, awards, etc. Ideally, they should referenced to a discussion of the rendition in a reliable source and not from a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, such as an album track listing or a general song search at AllMusic or Discogs. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC) This is how I've always handled things too - I only include cover versions from notable artists that can be sourced with a third party source, and trim out any others. Even outside of WP:COVERSONG, that's a pretty commonly used inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Sergecross73  msg me  14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sergecross73. The performer or the recording must be notable and a third-party reference (I don't like using Amazon or iTunes) discussing it is preferred. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The removed bullet point list (three of the versions were actually referenced) was of value because it illustrated the variety of artists—rockers, bluesmen, rappers, and points between—who've recorded the song. If it wouldn't be original research to write, "The song has been covered by a wide variety of artists, rockers Alex Chilton...etc" perhaps that or something similar could be included. In any event, the idea is to somehow illustrate variety. To sum up, deleting the bullet list removed what seems to me useful info from the article. Personally, I don't like the length of the list, but all the artists removed on 5 June were notable, while most were, indeed, unsourced. Tapered (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * [moved from above] Regarding your recent edit:  "Tramp" has been recorded by a dozen or more artists.  An earlier version of the article listed several, before they were removed for not meeting SONGCOVER. What is noteworthy about Johnny Winter's version that it has been re-added to the lead?  The ref only lists Winter as an artist and the song is not discussed in his AllMusic bio or WP article. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, , , A DISCUSSION ≠ A LIST. Repeat and rinse. My objection to the list deletion @ Tramp was that a policy relating to DISCUSSIONS was indiscriminately extended to delete a LIST. If there's no guideline concerning lists, it's not good enough to extrapolate a discussion policy without some strong line of reasoning—which was notably absent. Inclusion in a list doesn't require the same conditions as inclusion in a discussion, or at least there's no guideline for it. On that basis, I reject Toddst1's and your attempt to impose discussion guidelines on a list, out of hand.  Most of the artists weren't referenced and deserved deletion, but not all. I think that puts my position in some agreement with Sergecross 73, and even with my bete noire, Herr Görlitz, who rightfully insist on notable artists and proper references for inclusion in a list.


 * Before writing this I listened to Lowell Fulson and Salt N Pepa's versions of the song. There's not much to the original—just Lowell Fulson's guitar lick/hook, a rap about being a tramp, and a short, not very memorable sung melody. Otis R and Carla T turned it into a comedic 'debate.' I doubt that it would have done as well on the pop (as opposed to R&B) charts without the horn melody/hook from the Memphis horns—which Salt N Pepa very shrewdly included in their theft sampling. (When I think of the song, the first thing I hear in my mind is the Memphis horns.) Combine its lack of musicological interest with the fact that it only reached #26 on the pop charts, and it's not hard to understand why it hasn't generated enough attention and writing to justify much of a discussion in its Wikipedia article. So inclusion of a list of notable performers is especially useful for this article, as an illustration of its appeal and staying power. I didn't like the length of the list before deletion, and for articles about more notable songs, such a list would be purely a vanity project. For this particular song, while the list may incorporate a component of vanity, it's also very useful information. That's my argument for inclusion of the deleted list, AFTER proper documentation. And I think that Amazon is a reliable source for information for simple data like record names and song titles.


 * For the record, my inclusion of Johnny Winter in the article was, in part, an ad hominem reaction to a frustrating discussion, BUT an ad hominem reaction corroborating a performance by a notable R&B artist (as per the preceding clause), backed by a reliable source:BMI. Please also note that WP:NSONG confers WP:N, if a song "has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." I'm going to change the addition to Roy Head, because although Johnny Winter's name on the performance (with BMI) may have generated revenue for Fulson and his estate, the artist of record was Roy Head.


 * I also wonder if Steve Cropper had anything to do with Memphis Horns hook. Tapered (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You have raised several issues and seem to apply a lot of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. However, you haven't answered why Winter's/Head's version should be in the lead. The actual single lists the artist as "The Traits" – Head's group that briefly included Winter, which was noted in the pre-June song article.  BMI song listings under "Artist" are often incomplete. They don't mention the other artists included in the pre-June 5 article, such as Buddy Guy, ZZ Top, Steve Miller, etc., who are much better-known than Head.  A simple check of the AllMusic album reviews for these artists would have confirmed that they recorded the song.


 * The more important point, however, is whether any of these should be included. The refs only serve to confirm their existence, not that they are popular, noteworthy, important, influential, etc.  WP:NSONG does not "confer" WP:NOTABILITY: it states, if a song "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" then this may "suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful". Even if the song is notable, this in no way implies that all its covers are notable; in fact, your interpretation contradicts WP:COVERSONG, which further defines whether a rendition should be included in the article.


 * Again, song articles should provide encyclopedic content. A list of covers can be found at AllMusic, Discogs, etc.  WP:NOTEVERYTHING includes: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight."
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how helpful it is to resume this, given the issue's become somewhat inflamed – but just to clarify my position.


 * My point is that guidelines such as WP:COVERSONG should be kept in mind for a list of covers, and that a bulleted list of such items should in fact be avoided. The middle ground I referred to, between discussion of a particular recording and a list of several, concerns what I imagine would be particularly well-known songs and the inclusion of a sentence or two to state that the song has been covered by these artists ... Again, I acknowledge that the Beatles songs I work on are a rare breed: there's an abundance of commentary on each one and, unsurprisingly, cover versions are often discussed. So my point about "Yesterday" was that it's easy to mention some of the cover artists as identified by (and these sources are just off the top of my head): Chris Ingham in the Rough Guides title on the Beatles, Kenneth Womack's Beatles Encyclopedia, individual studies dedicated to the Sgt. Pepper album by Olivier Julien and Allan F. Moore, same for John Kruth's book on Rubber Soul and David Quantick's on the White Album. I know I've read in one of Alan Clayson's books, for instance, that "Yesterday" became ubiquitous in set lists for what he witheringly terms "the supper-club market" – Johnny Mathis, Petula Clark, Tony Bennett, Shirley Bassey, Andy Williams, etc. – and on their easy-listening albums. Better that, imo, than to leave the issue of the hundreds of cover versions barely touched on in the article. Alternatively, I believe it's correct to mention that a song's been covered by the artists listed at the end of Robert Fontenot's articles in his series for about.com (since he's identified as a reliable source), or those highlighted in an AllMusic article on the Beatles' original. It's not a case of giving any release details, just a short list of artists who have covered the song as identified by a RS. I don't believe this is necessarily any different from what's been said above by Ojorojo, Serge and Walter – but perhaps I'm wrong. JG66 (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?
I'm not sure where else to discuss this, so I'll just post here and see what happens. Very often, when viewing a category for songs by a particular artist, you will see genre categories. For example, Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:Electropop songs. But not all of the songs in the Lady Gaga category are electropop songs. Certainly "The Lady Is a Tramp" isn't electropop.

This seems to be very common, though, associating songs by an artist with a one or more specific genres (other examples: Category:Amy Winehouse songs, Category:Rihanna songs). We hold a strict standard to articles about individual songs, placing genres in Template:Infobox single/Template:Infobox song only when a reliable source confirms a specific genre or genres, yet we don't hold this standard to categories. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not all songs by an artist are of a particular genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Same with albums, e.g. we currently have Bob Marley and the Wailers albums categorized in Reggae albums by Jamaican artists, even though they're not all reggae albums. A lot of artists have worked in multiple genres. --Michig (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Petscan can perform these kinds of intersections for the user interested in reggae by Bob Marley. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In some cases, the current scheme is nearly useless. For example, all Category:Led Zeppelin songs are further categorized as British heavy metal and British folk, plus a couple others.  Looking through Category:British folk songs, you find Category:Led Zeppelin songs, but since that category includes all LZ songs without further qualification/categorization, it is not apparent which really are British folk songs (except for one song with a separate category).  Each song must be checked individually to find out (a brief search only showed one more with "English folk music" in the infobox).  So, the current categorization only serves to indicate that one or more of Zeppelin's songs are British folk, but not which one(s). This hardly seems to meet the goal of categorization, i.e., to "browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those [essential or defining] characteristics." ((WP:CAT).—Ojorojo (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see some agreement here. I will say, though, if we change the way we categorize by genre, there will be many, many categories needing updating. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Any suggestions for how to move forward or get additional input from more editors? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Since it would represent a substantial change, it should be taken up at Categories for discussion or such.  often works with music categories. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above: categorization of categories does not have to be as specific as by article. Imagine looking in Category:Reggae albums by Jamaican artists and not seeing the Bob Marley category! Some artists almost exclusively work in one idiom and then have a one-off album in another genre (e.g. electronic music artist Moby with the hardcore punk Animal Rights). In those cases, categorize the artist by the most typical genre or subgenre and the specific album by a more specific and accurate category. Imagine the chaos of having to sort through every single article of over 200,000 in over 18,000 artist categories and taking out individual articles... This is a huge scope of work for virtually no benefit and it would end up flooding certain categories with hundreds of articles instead of having a few subcategories. E.g. Isn't it better if Category:Hard rock albums by Australian artists has Category:AC/DC albums in it rather than every individual AC/DC album? That's the entire purpose of this category structure in the first place. I have to admit, the very idea of taking Category:Led Zeppelin albums out of Category:Hard rock albums by English artists just because Led Zeppelin III is a more mellow folk-rock album is ridiculous to me. I don't think you guys are thinking this through nor do you understand that the guidelines for categorizing an article are different and more stringent than for a category and for good reason. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this problem is only compounded by the song categories: it's really easy to have one song not in the genre that you're most associated with--that is going to happen pretty frequently. Again, think of how ludicrous it would be to take Category:Lady Gaga songs out of Category:Electropop songs which is a genre that she's definitely known for and which she has helped define over the past decade when she has one or two jazz standards that she's covered in duets with Tony Bennett. It's ridiculous. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Listing the Wailers ska albums as reggae albums would be ridiculous. The reggae albums can be individually categorised as reggae albums - problem solved. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

As a starting point, wouldn't it be better to clarify WP:SONGS to reflect something like: ""Category: songs" should be placed into one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category: songs" has not been added to this genre category."


 * —Ojorojo (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Some language like that is necessary. Someone like Miles Davis worked across virtually every genre of jazz, so his albums can only be subcategorized at the individual article level. Other artists, like Motorhead are not only rock bands but heavy metal and hard rock exclusively and even amongst heavy metal, part of the NWOBHM sub-sub-genre. And that kind of scheme works for 99% of artists. Others sometimes work in two fairly distinct genres--e.g. Steve Martin has bluegrass and comedy albums. Very few are really appropriate to categorize across more than two or three genres so the "problem" of having a single song or an experimental album that deviates from that is really a non-issue and what is being proposed above is a massive pain both to implement and for others to navigate when looking thru our scheme. It's in no way controversial to characterize Moby as an electronic music artist even if sometimes he works in a narrow sub-genre like ambient or has an occasional punk rock album. In those cases, just categorize that particular article differently. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The larger issue still needs some consideration, but meanwhile some of the current problems can be remedied. Propose to change WP:SONG as follows: "Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable:...
 * 5. Other than Category:Songs by artist, "Category: songs" should be placed into at least two other subcategories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by country and one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs.

Notes:...
 * 4. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category: songs" has not been added to this genre category."

If there are no objections, I'll add this. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My preference would be that 'by artist' categories are not put into genre categories at all unless the artist has only worked in one genre (or if the only ones we're likely to have articles on are in the same genre). Anything else is too problematic. There are Jamaican artists that recorded ska, rocksteady, reggae, and soul. There are artists that did folk and rock - putting all their recordings into both folk and rock categories would mean a lot of them would be in a wrong category. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Accuracy should be important – if a reader wants to read articles about electropop songs, they should not have to sift through dozens of artist's songs that may have no connection. Using your example (folk and rock), which category would you use (if any)?  Or the Led Zeppelin example?  Even "Rock" may not describe songs like "Going to California".  Although Koavf sees a problem, in many cases individual song/album categorization may be the only way to ensure accuracy. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a can of worms, really, and we have constant problems with editors adding and changing genres on articles. If an artist recorded in both folk and rock, I wouldn't put all their recordings into either category. Led Zeppelin - I would say rock is best, but if it comes down to opinions, this will vary among editors. The broader the genre categories we use the less problems we'll have. I'm tempted to suggest we go with what sources say, but then we get genres added by determined users solely on the basis of one mention in one source, and we have a ridiculous number of album and song articles with 3 or more genres listed. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 "Although Koavf sees a problem, in many cases individual song/album categorization may be the only way to ensure accuracy." I agree, I'd rather see entries categorized more accurately, not based on convenience. I've seen way too many entries miscategorized by genre. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 20:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this change, as Led Zeppelin is NOT limited to hard rock, but is also known for blues rock, folk rock and heavy metal (see main article, in the infobox). Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many artists are "known" for different styles of music, but adding all their songs to several categories in which they have few serves no purpose. Beatles songs are only included in British rock songs and British pop songs, although many of their songs are in different styles.  Those particular songs may be categorized individually.  As pointed out above, British folk music arguably only describes 2–3% of LZ's 94 songs with articles.  It seems 51% is a reasonable threshold.  My sampling only showed hard rock with a majority.  It would be interesting to see the numbers for other categories. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did the "2–3% of LZ's 94 songs" and "51%" come from ? Reliable sources explicitly called Led Zeppelin either blues rock, heavy metal or folk rock. I'm not talking about specific songs here, but main genres. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Better to categorise the individual songs under what reliable sources agree on, rather than listing them all under three genre categories. I really don't see a problem categorising individual articles rather than trying to lump them all under multiple categories by artist. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (r to Synth) Categories have a function, which isn't the same as describing an artist's body of work. By looking at Category:British folk songs, a reader should be find a list of WP articles about British folk songs. If the list (the category) also has a lot of hard rock, heavy metal, etc. songs, it is useless – it's just another list of songs.  I went through the 94 Led Zeppelin song articles and found two that had something like British folk listed as a genre in the infobox, or roughly 2–3%.  If you look back through this discussion, you'll see that, as a starting point, that Category:ARTIST songs (their entire body of work) should not be placed in a Category:GENRE songs, unless that genre describes a majority (more than 50%) of their songs.  What is wrong with adding individual LZ songs that maybe folk, folk rock, metal, etc., to those categories directly? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, and I share 's sentiments about this system of categorization. I've always seen edits like this to be completely ridiculous. One idea that came to mind is to follow the model of. As we see with, it is categorized under , but not —that's left for the categorization of the article. We can apply the same principle, for example, to : categorized under (or something to that effect, preferably less ugly and more succinct), but not, which will be left to the articles. Thoughts? ℯ xplicit  03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there another place to raise this issue? I'd hate to see this conversation stall. RfC? Not sure how to proceed to get more community discussion. Pinging you all as contributors to this section. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, song categories have become just another target for drive-by tagging, often unsupported by any mention or reference in the article. Other editors see it as describing all of the influences on the artist or their song catalogue.  In any event, many of the listed categories are not defining characteristics of the song. Since this may be part of a bigger problem (WP:ALBUMS), etc.), maybe it should be taken up at WikiProject Categories. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about White House petition to make Party in the USA the national anthem
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about whether to include a petition started by Elijah Daniel in the article about him, which was a White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem.

You may comment, if you wish, at: Talk:Elijah_Daniel.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Parent company of AllMusic nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/All Media Network
The parent company of AllMusic was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/All Media Network. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hands (Mike Perry song)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hands (Mike Perry song). nyuszika7h (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal of Dutch certification parameter
Please see the discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry about what to do about the template parameter for Dutch certifications. The official NVPI website which used to show all the Dutch certifications has been inactive now for almost two years, and the 400 or so song and album articles that use this template now just link to a series of pop-up ads when you click on the citation, which probably isn't good for Wikipedia or anybody's computer or mobile device. Richard3120 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple of issues at Rockin' Robin (song)
Another editor will not accept my reference for who plays on the original, or at least Bobby Day's version and then insists on calling the genre Bubblegum pop, a genre that was not even invented until a decade after the song was recorded. I'd rather not have an edit war so if a few folks would stop on by, that would be great. If you really agree with him (it's got to be a guy) then so be it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Song for Another Time by Old Dominion
Before I tried to edit the page, another writer had listed 12 of 25 song titles that are part of the lyrics of the song "Song for Another Time" by Old Dominion.

I tried to add the other 13 song titles to the page. I typed it out and inserted it, but someone deleted my addition along with the original listing stating names of people required citations. It is not a list of people. It is a list of song titles and the singers or bands which recorded them, many of which (maybe all) are already listed in other Wikipedia pages.

Can the actual lyrics be inserted in the page for this song? The lyrics are the citation which document that the song titles in the list below are in the song. If I am not permitted to list the singers names, can I list the song titles without the singers names, and state that the song lyrics may contain these song titles?

Please tell me if I am allowed to add the following information about a song to the page for "Song for Another Time" by Old Dominion:

The lyrics cleverly include approximately 25 song titles by other singers, bands. Song titles listed in order as they appear in Song for Another Time: 1. Right Now - Van Halen 2. Marina del Rey by George Strait 3. This Time Tomorrow - The Kinks or Ray Davies featuring Mumford & Sons

4. Yesterday - The Beatles (Paul McCartney) 5. Sunshine - Keane 6. I Can’t Make You Love Me - Bonnie Raitt

7. Brown Eyed Girl - Van Morrison 8. Sweet Caroline - Neil Diamond 9. Free Fallin’ - Tom Petty 10. Small Town Saturday Night - Hal Ketchum

Before you lose that Lovin’ Feelin’ = 11. You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling by The Righteous Brothers. The lyrics are actually lovin’ feelin’ in both songs.

12. Dancing on the Ceiling - Lionel Ritchie 13. Teenage Dream - Katy Perry 14. Paradise City by Guns and Roses 15. I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry- Hank Williams 16. One More Day - Diamond Rio 17. What Do You Say - Reba McEntire 18. Pretty Woman - Roy Orbison 19. Sunday Morning Coming Down - Johnny Cash (written by Kris Kristofferson) 20. Drive - The Cars 21. Country Road - James Taylor 22. Pink Houses - John Mellencamp

23. Candle in the Wind - Elton John

24. Always on My Mind - Elvis Presley 1972, and Willie Nelson 1982

25. I Will Always Love You - Whitney Houston

or please tell me why this list cannot be added. Thank you breeze2u Breeze2u (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NOTLYRICS - no, we don't just put lyrics in articles.
 * 2) Basically, you need reliable sources that directly verify that each song is having its lyrics be referenced in this country song. Otherwise it is "original research", which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  15:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Bob Dylan...Blonde on Blonde
Hiya, Wikipedians!

I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album. Another editor has reverted several of these edits. I made revisions based on his comments but these changes were reverted also. I do not agree with - and, in at least one instance, do not understand the objections given. Rather than get into an edit war I decided to bring the issue here.

The other editor initially objected that the references I had added were not notable. I felt that a band that is a Grammy award-winning member of the Grand Ole Opry and an album that has received national press coverage (Rolling Stone, The New Yorker) was at least as notable as the often obscure recordings already mentioned in these particular articles. The other party agreed with that observation, but then argued that the real reason for reverting was to avoid "endless lists of covers." Few, if any, of these articles mentioned more than a handful of covers - none were at risk of being overwhelmed by endless lists. And I felt that removing only a single entry, simply because it was the one most recently added, was highly arbitrary. Then the reason appeared to become that tribute albums are inherently not notable - another arbitrary decision - and I pointed out that many of the remaining entries were also for songs from tribute albums, some by major performers. And I was particularly confused by his citation of wikipedia policies that seemed to deal with the creation of stand-alone articles rather than additions to existing articles, as none of these edits had created a new, stand-alone article.

This individual seemed to consider it to be a challenge or personal affront that I disagreed with him - this would be borne out by a review of our dialog on his talk page. His most recent response was to remove ALL mentions of cover versions in several of these articles - which seems to me to be based on spite rather than a desire for editorial consistency. In other words..."I'll show you...."

If the determination is indeed that there should be NO mention of ANY cover versions of these songs, so be it - maybe that's better than arbitrary omissions. I'm completely in favor of consistency. But I personally think that that information adds to a reader's understanding of the song's cultural impact - and also that completely removing that information, rather than considering the addition of an item to the list, is a questionable decision. If you're going to remove entire sections from multiple articles, do it because it's the right editorial decision, NOT because you want to spite another editor.

Thanks for your thoughts.PurpleChez (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * it's probably a good idea to post this at WikiProject Albums instead - not just because you're talking about an album rather than a song, but also because that WikiProject tends to be more active than this one, so you're more likely to get responses. Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! PurpleChez (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * but only if you can do it in one edit! Use preview to avoid problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Walter...please don't take offence when I say that your comment made me laugh...at myself. Nowhere else do my OCD tendencies show themselves that in proofreading and revision. I make myself nuts!! Thanks for the heads up!!! PurpleChez (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * it's taking all the will power I can muster not to change "that" to "than" in the preceding paragraph!!! PurpleChez (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP said, "I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album." As it relates to the song articles, not the album article, this was the correct forum for this discussion. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Simon & Garfunkel
The Coolies did an album in 1986 consisting mostly of Simon & Garfunkel covers. I was in the process of adding this fact to the "Covers" section of the articles on each of these songs, however, Sundayclose ‎began following me, and undoing these edits. Rather than getting in an edit war, I figured I'd leave it to the masses. DB Records, The Coolies, is it worthy of mention in the articles for these songs?
 * First of all, having several S&G songs on my watchlist is not "following" you. Secondly, I gave the explanation for my reverts: your additions fail WP:SONGCOVER. You have not made the slightest attempt to provide what is necessary for the songs to be included as covers. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * is correct: plenty of songs have been covered by many, many people – WP:SONGCOVER states that only cover versions important enough to have gained significant media attention in their own right should be added. Unless you can find independent media coverage of the Coolies' versions, they should not be mentioned in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A better way to phrase what I was trying to say is that you followed my edits with your edits. I didn't mean it as a personal "you were stalking me" thing.Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted, SONGCOVER has specific requirements. However, some editors have argued that SONGCOVER only applies to creating a separate section about the cover in a song article and that simply adding an artist's name (as in a bulleted list) does not need to meet the "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" criterion.  This may be a source of some of the ongoing confusion and perhaps the SONGCOVER wording could be clarified. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a serious case made for applying the requirements only to separate sections. WP:SONGCOVER states: "discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article ... only if at least one" of the criteria for inclusion apply; nothing about a separate section. One of the reasons for the requirements is to prevent a huge list of covers that overshadows the article about the main version of the song. With a few exceptions, most songs only have one or two significant covers at most. Sundayclose (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been several instances, but this more recent discussion came to mind, specifically the comment "it is my interpretation of SONGCOVER that the notability aspect applies to a separate section within the article such as the Cream version." Apparently, the use of the word "discussion" in "discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article" was interpreted as allowing for a brief mention of a cover, since it wasn't longer, multi-sentenced text or "discussion" as one would find in a separate section.  It may be minor point, but "discussion" doesn't add anything to SONGCOVER and could be removed: "When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies..." Also, SONGCOVER could include a general statement similar to the one on the project page ("Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article") – "Most cover versions/multiple renditions do not merit inclusion in a song article." Obviously, many editors aren't getting the message and could use the extra reminder. —Ojorojo (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone subscribe to Billboard? I need to know some boxscore data.
For Number 1 to Infinity (residency show) please. Legs 3 and 5. — Calvin999</b> 08:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel that something should be done about Song.
It doesn't even have an importance rating, but, well, there's the obvious irony.

--Cprice45 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Roll with the Punches
The following is a request from my talkpage. I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:- Could you do what is necessary to change the redirect from Roll with the Punches away from Two (Lenka album)? There is also a Dawes song and now a Van Morrison album with the same title. Thank you for your help. I don't know how to do it.

I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:---Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest we just get to what's real. [Sorry, couldn't resist.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Song titles vs track titles
I've been doing some cleanup of tracklist templates and wanted to check regarding song titles. Not the titles of articles about songs, but the titles of the songs themselves, as they appear in double quotes. It seems pretty obvious to me but at least one editor disagrees and I felt I should get additional opinions. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When a track title includes something like (dance remix) or (acoustic version), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note?
 * When a track title includes something like (Intro) or (Interlude), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note to its function on the recording?
 * For me, it seems logical that in your first example, it's not part of the title, and in the second example, it is. There are many examples where "Intro" or "Interlude" is the only title of the track, so if you don't consider it part of the title, I don't know what you would call the track. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly agree with Richard3120 here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Same here. Not everything in parentheses is of the same character, and these two particular kinds of cases are clearly distinct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Can it be appropriate sometimes to italicize singles?
From MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:MINORWORK:
 * Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work.

Given that singles may consist of more than one track and thus be considered a "major work", this guideline contradicts WP:MOSMUSIC
 * In popular music, album, mixtape and EP titles should be italicized and song and single titles should be in quotes

For example, "Fickle Cycle" from Grass (or "Grass"?) is not really a single nor a B-side, it's simply a track from a single. So shouldn't we be italicizing singles? I don't mean to italicize songs that were released as singles, but rather in cases like Grass, where we're explicitly referring to the entire release. Obviously this all ties further into the above RfC.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose italics for singles - I don't think we should be making changes that more distinguishing between singles and songs. In creating/maintaining album articles, its already a frequently point of argument as to whether or not releases are "singles", "promotional singles", or just "songs" in this modern age where digital song releases are frequently and easily done without much of a formal definition. Having to format accordingly would only make things worse. Sergecross73   msg me  14:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no "points of argument", it simply is or isn't according to the dictations of the music industry. In the history of recording and publishing, a "single" has never meant the same thing as a "song". Recently, there's been a growing trend for singles to contain only one track, but that doesn't change anything about the classification. There are plenty of LPs comprising a single track - that doesn't mean they're singles. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad the whole situation is so black and white for you, but that doesn't change that editors are frequently arguing over it and confused over it. This is another "solution to a problem no one's having" type proposal. It would be a massive undertaking to implement and educate people on, with no actual benefit. Sergecross73   msg me  16:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The benefit is that Wikipedia becomes a more accurate resource for information. "It would be tedious" is not a valid argument, neither is "some people disagree with authoritative sources". Those excuses didn't matter at "the Beatles"/"The Beatles" mediation, and they shouldn't matter here. Can you name a specific example where editors couldn't decide whether a song was released as a "single" or a "track"? Maybe we should establish a guideline for those scenarios. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether we use quotes or italics has no bearing on Wikipedia being an accurate resource for information, that's ridiculous. It's also rather bizarre to assume that people are "disagreeing with authoritative sources before I've even given you any examples of disputes yet. Is it worth digging up examples if you've already made up your mind on it based on zero evidence? Regardless, your allusion to mediation about the Beatles is a good reason to show why these proposals are unnecessary and counter-productive though. Such a massive timesink on something so minor. So much time wasted, with virtually no payoff. I think its best not to waste the community's time on this sort of thing when it can be avoided. Sergecross73   msg me  17:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference between a "song" and a "single", not so much "The" or "the". A better parallel would be the difference between a "remix" and an "interpretive arrangement". And the payoff is similar to not hearing somebody say "I could care less" or "for all intensive purposes". It's not a world-shattering issue whether we get these things right, I'm only interested in what the "correct" answers are. Perhaps "Grass" and "'Grass'" are both acceptable typesets.
 * And "authoritative" can sometimes be subjective, obviously. Maybe a band records a double A-side that everybody thinks is an EP that gets placed on an LP record chart. That would be hard to figure.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment — To reiterate, the major/minor logic appears to go like this:
 * entity containing sub-entities = italics
 * sub-entity that is part of a greater entity = quotations
 * This is how I interpret appropriate usages:
 * {| style="background:transparent"


 * : || The single Good Vibrations was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love
 * : || The song "Good Vibrations" was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love
 * : || "Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks
 * : || Good Vibrations was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks
 * : || "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the Good Vibrations single
 * : || "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single
 * : || (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations
 * : || (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile"
 * }
 * --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * : || "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single
 * : || (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations
 * : || (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile"
 * }
 * --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * : || (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile"
 * }
 * --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to unarchive this from the most recent archive page, because it's closed with a lot of wrong advice (wrong from a WP/MOS perspective, and from that of other style guides, and basic logic, and reliable sources on music and record collecting). Short version at end; most of this is analysis and background. The overall view given above is misinterpreting the italics versus quotes relationship. It's not strictly "main work versus sub-work" at all. Italics are used for "major works", in a very vague sense, which includes novellas, operettas, small paintings, epic poems, short films, etc. – all rather short works in comparison to average novels, operas, larger artworks, collected volumes of poetry, feature films and TV series, etc. Quotation marks are used for "minor works", and they do not have to be sub-works of something else. If I write a song called "My Chicken Can Run Faster'n Yours" and never record it, so it is never a sub-work on an album or other release, it still gets quotation marks. Next, people get EPs and singles mixed up, a lot, even within the industry, because the meaning has shifted over time. If you follow the nomenclature in music collector publications, comprehensive discographies, and other such works that are modern, a general consensus definition emerges that an EP is a "mini-album" with a discrete title of its own, and no fixed number of tracks, but it'll probably be considered an EP if the overall length is roughly 50% or less than of a typical album, and it's not mostly or entirely variants of the same track, nor a larger-format (e.g. 10″ or 12″) version of a 7″. Some EPs only have two tracks (e.g. Licht und Blindheit by Joy Division), and some people like to classify those as singles, regardless of artistic or label intent (that's a form of WP:OR). When the term originated, it meant an "extended play" version of a single, but this meaning is pretty much dead. In modern terms, it's definitely a single if a) it's a pre-release of a song from an upcoming album, usually with another track or two or three; it's a re-release of a song on a current or recent album, usually with one or more additional tracks, c) it's a release of a song that isn't on or planned to be on an album at all, usually with one+ addl. tracks (and doesn't have a unique name, but is named for one of the included tracks). The additional tracks may be album tracks, or previously unreleased, or live cuts, or remixes. What makes it a single not an EP is it being named after the "A-side" (usually), or not having a name and just being something like "Good Vibrations"/"Let's Go Away for a While" on the labels (for media with such labels). People will argue about much later re-releases of material from an old album as new singles vs. EPs, with different people preferring a different classifier. The most consistent approach is to treat them as singles, unless they have a title that isn't a repeat of one of the song names, have "EP" in the title, or are consistently marketed as EPs, usually with some new content on them, that isn't just remixes of the title track, or previously released tracks. Regardless of that kerfuffle, a single can be multiple discs; I've seen some that were four discs with dozens of mixes of the same track and maybe one or a couple of other tracks, and pretty much no one calls them EPs. Moving on, Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as ...' has as its subject a song title, so that gets quotes. A corrected table looks like this:

Part of the confusion in the original table seems to be a supposition along the lines "if something is in quotation marks then the other something it was published within must be in italics." Just not true. It'll be true of articles in a periodical and chapters in book – and songs on an album. It's not true of chapters that have subchapters (both "levels" get quotation marks), "epic" songs with multiple named movements (they both get quotation marks; some examples are Rush's "2012" on the album 2012, and Kate Bush's "The Ninth Wave" on Hounds of Love, not to be confused with the single "Hounds of Love", released in four versions with different B-sides), or a TV show episode with a title and several individually titled segments - all quotation marks again, with the series in italics. Similarly, two different "levels" of works can both be in italics, e.g. Michael Moorcock's novel The Jewel in the Skull and four others were republished in the single-vol. The History of the Runestaff; see also Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring as a stand-alone book and The Lord of the Rings as the complete work (though series/franchises do not take italics or quotation marks, except where the oeuvre as a whole is named after one of the constituent works, thus the Marvel Cinematic Universe but the Star Wars Expanded Universe). In short, there is no – and cannot be – any "only one thing can be italicized and one thing in quotes" rule, because works do not come in only two levels of titles. Short version: Don't overcomplicate things. Albums and EPs get italics, songs and singles (including 12-inchers, maxi-singles, and multi-CD single packs) get quotation marks. Never waver from this pattern, and disputation will dissipate, being reserved for cases where the real world disagrees, e.g. about whether Licht und Blindheit is an EP or a single. Lean toward EP, since it isn't named after any song on it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Tiny Hands"
Project members are invited to participate in the ongoing deletion discussion about Fiona Apple's protest song "Tiny Hands" for the 2017 Women's March at the following link: Articles for deletion/Tiny Hands. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

One-hit Wonder Criteria
Hello. There is an ongoing debate on the criteria for the one-hit wonders in America listings over here at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States. It'd be nice if we could get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Make My Love Go
Ceryfication source doesnt works. Eurohunter (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you mean the Netherlands certification website? No, it doesn't – there's nothing we can do about it, so please don't use it. Richard3120 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just found it in article, its wrong generated and unsourced at this moment. Eurohunter (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it used to work, but the NVPI removed the certifications from its website about two years ago, so none of them work now. Richard3120 (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it never worked correctly and there was archived some 2008 certyfications only. This single been released last year and entered Dutch charts in end of February. Eurohunter (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It did use to work, then as you correctly say, later it just showed some 2008 certifications, and now it doesn't show anything. Anyway, you are right about this song - it's from 2016 when the certifications weren't working at all, so I have no idea where the editor got the certification from. It should probably be deleted if we can't find a source for it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It been added here. Eurohunter (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

One-hit wonder inclusion criteria
If you're interested in the topic, your comments would be appreciated at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States where there is a discussion with sweeping ramifications about whether the "one-hit wonder" articles will be based on charting songs or on artists described in sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Kyle West
I saw this wikiepdia article for songwriter Kyle West, my dad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Songs_written_by_Kyle_West But can't seem to link his 50 or so songwriter and producer credits here on wikipedia either. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/kyle-west-mn0000107983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsfan4ever (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)