Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 2

Thanks!
I'm a Cuban living in Venezuela whose mother was a singer. I'm sorry not to be contributing except with a huge "tank you" to authors and other contributors of this project which has already given me big, wonderful susprises. Keep it up! Raymat 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Single entry
In retrospect, I probably should have brought this up at WP:ALBUMS but since I started discussion here, I may as well continue it here. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive1, I've removed the track listing field of Single entry and removed its use on all the articles (around 70 of them). That took quite awhile, so I'll wait to do that again with the covers (since if there's enough critical commentary to need an image, there's a serious problem) unless someone else would like to do that and tag any of the images with orfud as needed. Would anyone be opposed to adding a warning that the template is deprecated so that it can be deleted once the tables can be converted to prose? ShadowHalo 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping my eye on this template and removing it from album articles. There are some I skipped over, because articles for the singles do not exist (wasn't sure what to do there), but I am running into some resistance when removing it from a few current albums.  I can't see how this template adheres to image guidelines, not to mention the ridiculous redundancy when articles for each single already exist.  I can't imagine why a single's image, extensive chart information, production credits and introductory sentences need to be duplicated into an elaborate table within an album's article. - eo 18:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I went ahead and added the warning template to Template:Single entry with the text "This template is deprecated. Using prose to discuss singles is recommended over using a table."  If anyone objects, feel free to bring it up here.  I'll try to remember to go through and remove the covers sometime this weekend.  ShadowHalo 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Small alteration to your banner
This got archived before I saw any response to it, so I'm bringing it back up - sorry for the duplication :)

As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter". The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info. The second is WikiProjectBanners, which hides all the banners in a one-line box (see Smells Like Teen Spirit as an example). As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the major disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members. The third option is WikiProjectBannerShell, which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).

Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter. I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it. I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option (code). As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there. If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.

Just a couple of the 20+ projects that have already implemented this option include: WP:MILHIST, WP:LGBT, WP:ALBUM, WP:India, WP:AVIATION, and WP:CCM.

Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as all banners can be hidden with only the title showing, I don't see the point of hiding the titles too. -Freekee 03:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

French 60s songs/singles/EPs?
I was about to edit Spikedcandy 09:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The code for album with EP in the relevant place works;

--Alf melmac 09:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for old songs that aren't singles or from an album
I would like to include some infoboxes in some old song articles. I looked at some famous old songs like Jingle Bells and Auld Lang Syne and we don't seem to have one. Should I just make one, or is there something I'm missing. - Peregrine Fisher 03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Song infobox, excluding the irrelevent fields. –Unint 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Child Ballads
The Child ballad Our Goodman has been marked for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag on the hypothesis that each individual one is notable, but there will undoubtedly be further discussion. DGG 06:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All songs with a documented history of over a century are notable by the song guidelines, so all the Child ballads are therefore notable. Still, if that information is not presented when a deletion proposal is made, they may be deleted.  Goldfritha 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad to say that the discussion closed very quickly with the nomination being withdrawn and a rapid keep. And probably some general increase in understanding. DGG 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that can help prevent such occurences is improving all the Child ballad articles. I am -- slowly -- working my way through English and Scottish Popular Ballads, but with that I can only add info about their relationship to other early ballads and to folklore in general.  Adding information about notable recordings would also improve them.  Goldfritha 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fiddler's Green
Will someone look at the Fiddler's Green article? I'm not sure that it belongs in this Wiki Project, but the article does mention several songs with the title. Any one care to comment if a Wiki tag is appropriate, or if other articles should be written? Pustelnik 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hands That Built America
On the Talk Page of The Hands That Built America, the article is rated as a stub class. I recently completely revamped and expanded the article, and so I suggest that the class of the article be changed. I would do this myself, but I'm not familiar enough with WikiProject songs to make the change adequately. MelicansMatkin 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I upgraded it to a B. A few more internal or external referrences might help.Pustelnik (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Save the Whales
Does anyone here have the Country Joe album that incldes Save the Whales? If so, please fill in the Infobox. Thanks!Pustelnik (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions
The naming conventions are for songs on an album. What do with folk songs, which are not part of an album? Goldfritha 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the naming conventions can be applied to any kind of song, even national songs. WP:BITE is a guideline that applies to every user, even those that are not registered, in example. Follow the "spirit" of the guideline, not the letter. -- ReyBrujo 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Dance Maxi Single Infobox
I have found a need for a specific Infobox template to properly document dance maxi-singles that are integral to a singles chronology for a musical artist. For example, Deborah Gibson released two dance maxi-singles that were unaccompanied (other than by an album) on Jellybean Recordings: JBR2524 "Only Words," released June 1997 and containing five tracks; and JBR2532 "Only in My Dreams 1998," released February 1998 and containing eight tracks. These releases occurred after Atlantic 87363 "Shock Your Mama" but before Espiritu 8317 "What You Want." I therefore propose a new Template form modified from the existing Template:Infobox Single, to be called Template:Infobox Maxi single. The entries will be similar to the existing Template:Infobox Single. Some dance maxi-singles actually have A- and B-sides with multiple tracks each of different songs, provision for which I recommend retaining. The entry data, similar to the existing Infobox single, should be as follows:

What further improvements before coding starts? - B.C.Schmerker 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks exactly identical to the existing template. Have you actually changed anything? –Unint 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The actual coding for Template:Infobox maxi-single is still in alpha; I may need two lines for the Artist section in the actual template. - B.C.Schmerker 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's the only difference (and I'm not quite sure what that means), I'm not sure why a whole new template is needed. Numerous articles about dance singles use this infobox. –Unint 06:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you need to list a large number of remixes of the A-side and B-sides, wouldn't it be better to put that in the article text? –Unint 06:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone ahead and created it, so presumably you feel it's out of "alpha". And the only thing you've changed is switching the link to single (music) with maxi single...? –Unint 06:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to the need for compatibility with existing chronologies already in WikiProject Songs. One line actually proved sufficient for the Artist entry. - B.C.Schmerker 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by this. You haven't actually changed any aspect of the chronology. –Unint 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Unint, I'm having trouble understanding what exactly you need that can't be done in the existing Template:Infobox Single. If you need additional chronologies for multiple artists or timelines, that's already provided for with the Misc field and the Template:Extra chronology.  See "(Can't You) Trip Like I Do" for an example of a single with 2 artists and 2 chronologies.  If this does not accomplish what you need, then please try explaining it in specific terms.  If a consensus is reached on a need for a new template, then I would recommend testing the new template in a sandbox until it is ready for use, rather than creating a template that is essentially identical to an existing template.   Tabanger   00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
Please share your thoughts at Talk:Save Your Kisses For Me and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest. Jogers (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Both WP:NC and WP:ALBUM give the same thing being "the standard rule in the English language". But they don't specifcally state that we should follow this rule rather than going by the official capitalisation of the title. I recently renamed Honey to the Bee to Honey To The Bee because that's how the official title is, but then AnemoneProjectors changed it back using the house style as an excuse. And even reverted all instances of the title within the article.

IMO the preferred style should be to use the official title where it makes sense to do so. Moreover, in its current form the text of the article gives no indication of the official capitalisation, nor even that the form used in text isn't it. -- Smjg 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that those are worded vaguely. The accepted interpretation is that the capitalization of English language titles should be normalized, i.e. you should follow those rules. --PEJL 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since standard English rules seem to override the principle of accuracy in quoting titles, should we on the same basis correct spelling/grammar errors in song titles? -- Smjg 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not the convention. --PEJL 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that it ought to be for the sake of consistency. Unless you've an idea for another way of making the conventions consistent.... -- Smjg 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The line has to be drawn somewhere, and wherever it is drawn, there will be an inconsistency. If we were to fix spelling/grammar errors, the line would get much blurrier than it is today. --PEJL 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hash
It was decided a while ago that there was no necessity for the "#" symbol in front of numbers in discographies, but its use has hung on here, leading to inconsistency between different parts of the same articles. Would anyone deeply object to its being removed? Aside from being non-standard (many publication prefer the more usual "no" if they use an abbreviation at all), it's unnecessary &mdash; it stands for "number", and no-one's going to mistake "13" or "1" for anything but numbers... --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 13:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Must admit, I'm guilty of hashing my numbers, simply by habit though, have no problem waving them goodbye.--Alf melmac 18:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

?
Stop me if you've heard this one before: would there be interest in having such a cleanup category for song articles lacking any (permanent) categories? This would be readily populable from the various single-stub and song-stub categories, plus whatever other varticles people wanted to lob in by hand. Compare the long-standing. Alai 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions, infoboxes, etc.
It seems to me that the people who decided on song naming conventions and the people who designed the infobox did not really understand how things were years ago, because both aren't really easy to use for 1940s-1950s songs, and really the same applies to standards as well. Now, perhaps, most singers record songs they themselves wrote, so it might make sense to refer to some song as " ( song)." But this isn't an easy thing to do with the older songs, because a songwriter would hawk his song to the various recording companies, each would assign a singer to it, and there would be multiple versions of a song recorded, and even multiple versions that charted! (See Again (1949 song) for an admittedly extreme example.) I have used the publication year as the disambiguator here, as I do generally, and I think this is the best way to do it. But someone else created Till the End of Time (Buddy Kaye and Ted Mossman song) using the songwriters' names, and moved the article I originally wrote as Till the End of Time (1945 song) to there, obviously thinking that to be better. While either is better than "Till the End of Time (Perry Como song)" in my mind, since there are at least three other recordings, one of which charted and one other of which is important enough to have been reissued in a CD album, we have to determine what to do. (The problem with songwriters' names is, which order? Buddy Kaye and Ted Mossman or Ted Mossman and Buddy Kaye?)

The same problem applies to standards; many recordings have been made of some of them, how to pick out the artist whose name appears in the song title?

With infoboxes, of course, this is an even bigger problem. In the titles, it only matters if you need to disambiguate. If the article is just under " ," it doesn't matter how many recordings exist. But the current infobox design is totally unwieldy if you have a separate infobox for each version. One really wishes to have some device like the way succession boxes work, where there is a top part and a bottom part, where the part that can be put in for each version can be repeated as many times as necessary. Because of this, I have simply refused to put in infoboxes in my song articles, though there are some songs that have only one version where in theory I could have done so. -- BRG 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the main project template for use in article describes a single is a mystery to me too. The project is named ...songs whereas it states it was derived from project album, so why ...songs instead of ...singles, I don't know. Song infoboxes are only noticable by their absence ;) though better thought for the naming conventions is needed, as the disambiguation page for your example, Again, is in direct opposition to what is written on the project page, but seems to be a more user friendly way of doing it. When I think of a song, I think of ~A3 pieces of paper, folded in the middle, with title and picture (usually in low-colour printing) on the 'front', lines with 'strange dots, squiggly marks and foreign symbols' that I read as music on the inside and either advertising or more music on the 'back'. An article about songs should be how this came to be - articles about singles are about artistic interpretations of the songs - much as films based on books are artistic interpretations of the book. Disambiguation from book titles is less of an issue, as many variants are accepted: "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", "(dialogue)", "(essay)", "(play)", etc. It is also acceptable to use the authors as disambiguation. Films, however use the year system, which reads cleaner in a lot of cases, so I'm happy with your way of treating it.--Alf melmac 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BRG makes a good point. Better than omitting an infobox from articles, though, would be to create one for this sort of case, with places to enter writers and main versions. Anyone here up to doing that? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See if the one that was written is up to it, I added a section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, its a naff title, change it to something better.--Alf melmac  22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it might need some more parameters, if I transfer Jingle Bells I get;


 * which is a start, but somewhat lacking.--Alf melmac 22:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The real problem (which that infobox does not address) is that "recorded," "chart position," "label," and "artist" refer to one specific recording. What I want to do is something like what is done for the rail services in, say, Gallery Pl-Chinatown (Washington Metro) where there is a sub-box in the infobox, so that the individual recorded versions could be listed in the sub-box, while having only one place where the information common to all versions (composer, writer, and such) is placed. -- BRG 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the status of Flowerparty's replacement infobox? It's apparently being used on a few articles, although it shouldn't be if it's still in the User namespace, IMO. Why did adoption stall? Vagary 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved it into the template space, and I've changed all links to point to the new location. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect or incomplete song titles
Just in my semi-random searches on Wikipedia, I've found at least two song titles that are incorrect, and verifiably so. I'm wondering if cleaning these up is part of the project.

Two that come to mind immediately, and I've put Talk comments on both, are:

Promise of a New Day (Paula Abdul song) -- the actual title is "The Promise of a New Day"

Let It Snow (holiday season classic) -- the actual title is "Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!" or sometimes rendered "Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow". Not only that, but there's a completely different song, "Let It Snow," which was done by Boyz II Men and has no relationship to the 1940s standard except its title (sort of).

I don't know how to change titles of articles myself, or I'd already have altered them. Cheemo 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheemo, when you're signed in, click the "move" link to rename an article. Unless there is already an article at the proposed name, it is usually automatic (just double-check after moving to fix any resulting double redirects). B.Wind 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was able to fix "The Promise of a New Day" with no problem. But I created a mess with Let It Snow, because I accidentally made a typographical error and didn't look at it before hitting the "move" button. Alas, the page is now at "Let It Snow! Let It Snoe! Let It Snow!" (note the typo "Snoe"). Unfortunately, I then accidentally created a page with "Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!" as a redirect, so I can't rename my misspelled name to the name I want it. ACK!


 * Basically, what I want to do is have the main page for the song be its correct title, "Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!" There then needs to be a redirect from "Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow." Finally, there needs to be a new page (probably) for "Let It Snow (Boyz II Men song)", or perhaps a disambig page. I don't know. I'm still learning the ropes here. Cheemo 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I got an admin to make the change for me quickly and painlessly. I have yet to create the page for the Boyz II Men song; I think it deserves a page, as it is one of the very few holiday-themed songs to make the US Top 40 since 1964. But I don't yet feel up to the research that would make it more than a stub. Cheemo 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Music videos excluded?
I don't see music videos mentioned in this project. Shouldn't the song's music video also be described in detail, similarly to movie articles, with information about its director, producer, choreographer, dancers, screenshot etc? Libido 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally, music videos are paired with Singles, so a Video section could be included in the body of an article on a known single release. Producer and director would be standard info in such a case; choreographer, cast, &c. would be on an as-needed basis. - B.C.Schmerker 07:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover versions
Another day, another edit to delete from the list of cover versions of the Kinks' You Really Got Me a performance on American Idol. In my view, a television performance of a song by an otherwise non-notable performer doesn't rate inclusion as a cover version. A cover version ought to have some degree of permanence and significance, neither of which are provided by a wannabe pop star singing on a television talent quest. Thoughts, anyone? Grimhim 07:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Just because some flavor of the month puts it on the B-side of a Nigerian CD single or as an MP3 "easter egg" on their official web site or sings it live in concert (with its only release on a bootleg) doesn't make ir worthy of mention. So what if Guns N' Roses did a song in concert or left it on the cutting-room floor? To me, it's really only worthy of mention if it was actually released, such as on their covers LP The Spaghetti Incident? I'm a relative newbie here, and I've seen a lot of lists of "cover versions" that overwhelm the article itself. I tend to glaze over them, as those lists rarely distinguish between the important covers and the trivial ones.


 * To me, a "cover version" is worth mentioning if it was a hit in its own right (say, Van Halen's version of "You Really Got Me" or Joe Cocker's "With a Little Help from My Friends" or the assorted remakes of "The Loco-Motion"), was on a noteworthy popular album (say, Simon & Garfunkel's version of "Bye Bye Love" from Bridge Over Troubled Water), or is by an artist that Wikipedians feel is deserving of comprehensive song-by-song linkage (say, U2 doing "Everlasting Love" or "Helter Skelter" or the Beatles' or the Rolling Stones' numerous covers).


 * What some of the younger folk here don't realize is that in the 1960s, covers of current hits as "filler" on an LP were standard operating procedure. Do we mention every single one of them? Not to mention that in the 1940s and 1950s, almost every hit song had multiple nearly simultaneous covers. There's a great case for including many of those. But the nauseatingly long lists of more recent songs are simply tedious. Cheemo 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found that some cover versions actually perform well in sales and airplay. For instance, the soundtrack single "You're the One That I Want (from Grease)" made it onto the charts from two different projects.  Everyone knows about the Olivia Newton-John/John Travolta duet on RSO, a known number-one on the Billboard Hot 100; but additionally, Craig McLachlan and Deborah Gibson had a distinct hit on their Epic UK cover version.  I put a second Infobox single at the head of the section Notable cover versions on the You're the One That I Want article, including some data unique to the cover version. - B.C.Schmerker 05:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New stub type proposed
I've just proposed a type, please comment there if you have any views. (I've also commented on the genre categorisation of the singles and songs.) Alai 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hellraiser (song)
Have merged the sub-stub page Hellraiser (Ozzy Osbourne song) into the above article, which will potentially upset one editor in particular, so the page may need an eye kept on it. Sorry if any trouble arises, I shall take some responsibility for it. --Jamdav86 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have semi-un-merged it and come up with another suggestion. You can't uphold one set of rules, and ignore the others. By the way, who are we talking to? – B.hotep u/t• 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt that it would be best to raise the matter here, where there would be more traffic than the song discussion page. --Jamdav86 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but there was more traffic on the song discussion page. This page isn't exactly kicking with life. Is the project even still alive? Doesn't seem to be with the lack of direction and interest lately. Also, please try and use an edit summary. ;) Cheers – B.hotep u/t• 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed I'm only here because of the trail. I've corrected all the misinformation about Ozzy having a single with this as the lead track, and I must agree Bubba, where is the direction for this project?--Alf melmac 06:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Standalone notability of a single also appearing on a soundtrack
There is currently a discussion on Talk:Redemption (song) whether or not this song, which was released as a single by a notable artist, should retain its standalone article or be merged into an article covering the soundtracks of several video games, as the track was also featured on one of those releases as a commercial tie-in. Opinions are welcome. - Cyrus XIII 14:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there is no consensus as of this writing on whether a merge would be appropriate for a track already released as a Single. Under the current climate, recommend keeping the existing Single article. - B.C.Schmerker 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about the Troubles
I have recently started a List of songs about the Troubles in my userspace, to collect information about how the conflict as a whole and individual events and episodes, have been interpreted in music. The list at the moment includes only four pop songs, but is also meant to include Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Republican, songs. I found this cd, but I'm not sure the songs on there are notable and/or representative. I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to help me expand this list about what might be a sensitive subject. A ecis Brievenbus 14:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a Stan Rogers song, I'll try to get it to you later.Pustelnik 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on From Fresh Water, song title House of Orange. A great piece in the a pox on both your houses vein. LeadSongDog 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Music video credits
Just to make sure, should articles include a list of credits for music videos? ShadowHalo 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronologies - succession
Hello. I'm not a fan of those chronology boxes or lists. Meaning listing what song came before it and which came after it (by other artists). It's not necessary, and creates clutter. Not necessary to know that. George Slivinsky 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which chronologies, specifically? The chronologies in single infoboxes or song infoboxes don't include songs by other artists. --PEJL 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He's talking about the succession boxes, I believe. See the disaster that is Beautiful Liar.  ShadowHalo 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the succession boxes are another nice idea that have gone totally out of control. What started out as boxes for #1 songs in the major music markets have turned into a labyrinth of every imaginable component chart and airplay chart for every Eastern European country.  A more detailed discussion should probably be started somewhere within WP:SONGS about these. - eo 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, what do you have against Croatia? It makes up (not even) a whole one thousandth of the global music market.  ShadowHalo 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes they're called succession boxes. Like in Music! Music! Music!. Don't like it. George Slivinsky 06:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We Belong Together
This song title could use a disambiguation page (I can't do it). The Mariah Carey people are very possessive of this name and refuse to add brackets with (Carey) or (2005). There are redirects that erroneously go to her song. (ShadowHalo, control your reactions)

Standardisation of Category:Songs by songwriter
There does not seem to be a clear standard for naming subcategories of Category:Songs by songwriter. Of 118 categories, about 60 percent are of the type Category:Songs by X, about 40 percent are Category:Songs written by X, and a few are Category:X songs (following the standard of Category:Songs by artist). Which is the proper convention? I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I thought I'd let everyone here know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Songs that aren't singles
What's the general consensus for having articles about songs that aren't singles? Not calling for a blanket "delete all non-single song articles" or anything like that, but if the song itself isn't terribly notable, such as the Stone Temple Pilots' Dead & Bloated, I'm not sure it warrants an article of its own. Doing a bit of `net searching on this particular one turns up nothing but lyric sites.

For the record I've always been a big grunge fan and of STP in particular, but I'm just not seeing the notability of articles like this, and there are a lot of similar ones out there. Tarc 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The main question is simply, "Are there enough sources to write an article?" The Beatles are notable enough that there probably are enough sources to create a good article for most of their songs.  Stairway to Heaven's another good example.  But it's very unlikely that there are sources that have discussed Dead & Bloated enough to come up with much of an article.  17Drew 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jude FAR
Hey Jude has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new infobox to replace 4 others
Hello, I am new to this project, and I have worked on a super-infobox to replace Infobox Album, Infobox music DVD, Infobox Single, and Infobox Song, located here: User:FMAFan1990/Infobox music release and the related User:FMAFan1990/Infobox music release/link and User:FMAFan1990/Infobox music release/color. I have some examples listed at User:FMAFan1990/Infobox music release/examples. Tell me what you think of them. FMAFan1990 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to make it only one template, but the move will be somewhat controversial. --Jamdav86 11:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at WT:ALBUM. I suggest continuing this discussion there, to keep it in one place (at least those parts not specific to songs). --PEJL 11:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Love Rollercoaster
doing some research on Red Hot Chili Peppers, I came across Love Rollercoaster. Someone had mentioned on the talk page they thought the RHCP infobox (from their cover) overwhelmed the Ohio Players info in the upper bit of the article, so I went and stuck an infobox on there for the OP version. Not being a member of this project, I'm not sure I did it right, so if someone wants to drop by and make sure I used the right one, that'd be appreciated. Thanks from a hit-and-run editor Kuronue 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Theme Song
Hi, I'm not a member of the project, but I was wondering if there was any policy preventing me from creating a page for The Simpsons theme. It has been covered by many groups and has been released on 5 (soon to be 6) official Simpsons CDs, performed by Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer and Green Day. Green Day recently released a single of the theme, and if the single does chart (which I doubt, but you'll never know), I think I'll have just reason to make a page. I could easily dig up some verifiable sources, but I just figured I'd check here and see if there is precedent for or against TV themes. Thanks for the time, Scorpion0422 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, there's no specific recommendation on theme songs. I'd just go by Verifiability; if there's significant coverage from secondary sources, then go ahead and make an article.  17Drew 06:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Folk Song
Could somebody make a template for Public Domain Lyrics. Perhaps something like is used in Amazing Grace?--Jdavid2008 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We've been discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Roots_music, and agreed that there was a need for this kind of things, but the only thing we have so far is Template:Traditional Song boilerplate, which probably isn't what you want. -- TimNelson 02:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging songs
Just a note that a few songs will be merged (eg. "Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard" into "Matty Groves", as they're the same song), and in that case, I'll remove the WikiProject Songs banner from the talk page of the redirect, even though I'm not a member of this project. If there are any objections to this, let me know.

-- TimNelson 02:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion (any method)
I would suggest that you utilize WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music for deletion nomination notifications and adopt Music as a sorting tag. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting on this topic. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite facts, avoid adding your own interpretations
Keep in mind WP is a resource for factual material, not a place for original research, interpretation or our opinions. Excerpting fragments of lyrics (within the limits of fair use) makes some sense, but paraphrasing or interpreting them is going to stray into "original research" except when an interpretation can be in the form of a cited quote from someone with authoritative insight (such as the songwriter or notable performer). People are going to have dramatically different interpretations on even very restrained attempts to declare "what a song is about". Take a look at for example. This extrapolates details that simply aren't in the song, e.g. "...excuses herself and tries to get away as quickly as possible. Even after she's gone, he can't grasp..." People should be directed to other sites than WP for interpretation and opinion. DKEdwards 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's lovely and all, but is there a reason why you're notifying the entire WikiProject about something any editor should know? The page already says, "Do not include 'original research' such as opinions about a song, or interpretations of the lyrics or even statements about what the song is 'about'."  17Drew 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but that was added less than 15 minutes before the post above (by an anonymous editor). Did User:DKEdwards forget to log in, or were these two changes prompted by a discussion elsewhere? --PEJL 07:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Better Integration With The Google Wikipedia Search Widget
Is there a way that we could better integrate with the widget by providing the infobox as a result of a search instead of the first few words on the page? Most of the time when people search for songs on wikipedia they're searching for the genre, the artist, the year, the album etc for the song, not the history. I have recently been improving my mp3 tags, and to find the genre of a song i need to open up the page itself, which defeats the purpose of the widget. Possibly, we could show the info box if the search contains "SONG NAME ( ARTIST song)". I dont know who developed the widget or if this is possible but i will look into it further. 76.197.230.2 19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The place to ask would be Village pump (technical). However, it's unlikely that such a change will be made.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory.  17Drew 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lay Down Sally
I just made an article for Clapton's Lay Down Sally. Right now it needs alot of work, so I was hoping someone here could work on it.  Sasha Callahan   00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringin' on the Heartbreak Good Article review
One of this project's Good Articles, Bringin' on the Heartbreak, is up for Good Article review (here). Members of this project are welcome to contribute to the discussion and hopefully edit the article based on the review to avoid it being delisted form GA status. Drewcifer3000 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
I have created a new deletion sorting page at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, which emerges from discussions here and here. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Both a " songs" and a " singles" category!?
Should a song released as a single be placed in both a " songs" and a " singles" category? The way I read WikiProject Songs, the answer is No. But if I read the intro for, for example, Category:2007 songs it says "Songs written or first produced in 2007." and Category:2007 singles says "singles which were released in the year 2007.", meaning the answer to my question would be Yes since the difference between Category:Songs by year and Category:Singles by year isn't just Songs vs. Singles, but The year they were written or first produced vs. Year released. And also, the intro for Category:Songs by year says "Songs by the year in which they were released", contradicting what it says in Category:2007 songs which is written or produced. ... So what is it " singles" only or both " songs" and singles"? - kollision 13:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently added to project
With the assistance of SkiersBot there have been approximately 845 articles that used (or one of the recursive stub categories) now tagged as "stub" and "auto" with the project tag on their talk pages.

If you have any suggestions on other categories that are covered by this project that should be scanned, please leave a note on my talk page. SkierRMH 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Update guidelines for consistency with albums
So, this WikiProject was initially spun off from WikiProject Albums, and many of the guidelines were copied from that project. The Albums project has since been much more active than this one, and as many of the guidelines for Albums have evolved, the corresponding guidelines at WikiProject Songs have not been updated. The result is a different set of guidelines for albums and songs, in areas where there is no good reason for such a discrepancy. I'd like to rectify some of this, so I'm going to be editing these guidelines to bring them more in line with the albums guidelines. If any changes seem controversial, please bring them up here. --PEJL 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just made the first such change, making WP:SONG (which previously reflected an earlier guideline at WP:ALBUM), reflect the currently guideline at WP:ALBUM. --PEJL 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cover versions - can we get a consensus on this?
I know that there has been an effort by quite a number of editors to merge song articles with notable cover versions into the same article. I erroneously thought that this was a part of WP:SONGS and actually I'm quite surprised that this has never been officially added to the guideline. So what *is* the proper formatting of songs with equally notable cover versions? Merging seems to be the most logical way to handle it (as the articles are about songs, right?), and I think it has worked rather well so far (for examples, see (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, Venus (song), I Love Rock 'n' Roll, These Boots Are Made for Walkin', The Power of Love (Jennifer Rush song), etc., etc.). So what is the official word on this? Can we get something added to the guideline or are people resisting this format? - eo 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. No objections here. --PEJL 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see that, as well. -Freekee 04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very many of the "song" articles are in fact about the various "singles" with little data about the song itself - for example, what key is "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" in? Is it in a minor or major key? How many beats in a bar, how many bars in the chorus and verse? What is the rhyming pattern of the words? (etc). I see many editors concerning themselves more about which infobox should be used than making a reader's encylopedia. There is no similar thought amongst literature, film and other like articles, we are now thinking about blanket manhandling of disparate subjects with the "merge is right" sticker, this seems to be wrong logic to me. The issue of the reader being able to find the info that they were after without having to trawl through (to their mind) irrelevant data is also a concern to me, there is never a space issue on wikipedia, coherent navigation through artist discographies would be stymied by this move as well as the continued mixing of types of articles - as I said above - a song is not a single, although I can see that housing the data about the single is possible to house on the song page, it makes for less accessible and less flexible methods of presenting the data. I strongly object to merging 'by consensus/policy'.--Alf melmac  05:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally think an article about a "song" should involve the cover versions. Not a separate art about each version. But neither do I think it should be forced. Use individual discretion. That's why in many cases infoboxes aren't appropriate - they are meant for one version. 216.95.55.112 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually came here today to see if this WP had "article of the X" to nominate Gloomy Sunday as an article to gang up on to improve it... it's an example of a much covered song with a history which has already resulted in its amalgamation. - BalthCat 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bugs In New Player?
The new player creates problems in Firefox as soon as I press play. Old one no problem. Old one was in beta. Didn't see the new one in beta - why not? Not tested? (For example right now I can't change tabs in Firefox, it's stuck on incomplete loading, etc...) Also the changes have been dropping some of the old text relating to the samples, like titles. That's irresponsible performance. 216.95.55.112 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

When a song has featured artist
In the song infobox, there is fild for the artist: | Name          = When a song has two or more artist, for example: "Track name" (featuring Artist A and Artist B) how the "Name" field should be filled?

| Name          = Artist, Artist A, Artist B or | Name           = Artist (featuring Artist A and Artist B) Thanks.--Tasc0 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what people have been doing (at least its an option I do) is put lead and featured artists in the "Artist" field: "Artist A featuring Artist B". In the "Chronology" field, type "Artist A singles" (fill in last, this, next single), then add "Extra chronology" fields for Artist B (last, this, next singles).  You can take a look at pretty much any current hip-hop song article to see how people have it set up. - eo 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the best option is the second one I listed. With out the "featuring". But that's just me.


 * What I'm trying to ask, is if there's any guideline or something like that where it says how it goes.--Tasc0 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any official guideline but I think the rule of thumb is to list the artist(s) as it appears on the label or the album/single cover. - eo 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty much in every single/album cover it says the word "featuring". But I sill think an official "style" or guideline should be made in the infobox page. Just to clear all the doubts.--Tasc0 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow (song) by Kate Bush
Who is that picture that someone has uplaoded next to this entry?

Kate looks very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpjonesuk (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. --PEJL 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1964 or 1965 Grammy nominees
My Kind of Town (Frank Sinatra song) is this week's WP:CHICOTW. It would be interesting to find out if the song was nominated for a Grammy Award since we have confirmed it was nominated for an Academy Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sinatra Oscar noms
The Academy Awards do not include the singer in the award for Academy Award for Best Original Song. Thus, I can not use the http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org database to determine how many songs sung by Sinatra have been nominated for Oscars. Is this something that is easy to find out some other way?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cover versions
Finally, is there a way to research cover version of My Kind of Town (Frank Sinatra song).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

peak positions
Are airplay chart positions applicable to infobox's peak position? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Addition, the infobox looks so cluttered due to peak positions that only repeated what appears in the charts. I think we should limit the positions. We should only include those positions in the box reaching top40. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline already states that they should be limited to Top 40. See Template:Infobox Single. --PEJL 12:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just recently had an edit war with some contributors. For this instance, I deleted US positions in the infobox's peak position which is under 40-something 48. My understanding on the policy is that all positions under top 40 should not be included in the infobox yet could be included in the chart performances below. However, the contributor contended my deletion. Pls help. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I encounter editors who disagree with a guideline on a specific article, I ask if they have specific reasons for making an exception from the guideline in the specific case, or if they disagree with the guideline in general. If the latter, I ask that they raise the issue at the talk page of the guideline, and ask that the guideline be followed in the meantime. --PEJL 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what's the verdict now? What should be adhered to? Should we include positions below 40 even if it's a comprehensive chart? For me, even if it's a position from the US, like Billboard, we should limit then the positions. Only positions 40 above should be included in the infobox's peak position section. If not, the chart below the page is of no avail. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline should either be followed or changed, if there are no specific reasons why it shouldn't apply to this case. --PEJL 10:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [outdent] Using the home chart is one of the few ways to get rid of POV. For awhile, I think it was top 40 charts and English-speaking countries.  English-speaking countries are gone since that's biased toward English-speaking countries.  Top 40 is inherently biased in favor of the artist since it only shows countries where the single did well.  The artist's home country is currently the one position whose inclusion doesn't convey and POV.  Really, I don't see why the chart positions are there at all, considering Infobox Album doesn't have them and the positions take up several lines but convey relatively little information.  17Drew 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. A better place for chart positions would be the body of the article. The infobox should summarize facts stated elsewhere in the article. In the case of chart positions, summarizing these in a NPOV way is difficult, so we should consider leaving them out of the infobox entirely. --PEJL 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we include all this stuff in the infobox, the home chart will be a waste of space. Infobox now summarizes what the home chart is depicting. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox Single to removed the chart positions field entirely. 17Drew 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this concern to admins. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This hasn't yet been raised to any admins AFAIK. --PEJL 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (It has now.) I'm going to remove the chart positions from Template:Infobox Song as well, as there is even less reason to have such as section in the infobox for non-single songs. --PEJL 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not happy with the decision to remove chart placings from the infobox - they're extremely important to singles (as opposed to albums) and are probably one of the things people would look for most when they're looking up an article. Suggesting that giving 'home' chart placings is POV is just silly Cavie78 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions (revisited)
I have been trying to get some discussion on the naming convention by which it is advised to disambiguate songs by using artist name -- which I think is a terrible rule for most of the songs I am concerned with, because they were recorded by many artists (in some cases, by more than 100!). When I put in a comment last May, one person agreed with me regarding the example I gave, but then the discussion seemed to die.

I have been using the publication year to disambiguate, as in Again (1949 song), but some others have been using the songwriter(s), as in Till the End of Time (Buddy Kaye and Ted Mossman song). Neither one conforms to the rule here, though either is better than using the rule given here. But we need to discuss this. -- BRG 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus is to disambiguate by the artist; the year should only be used if that doesn't work. It's not a terrible rule because you should only use the original performer's name (not cover artists). The problem with using years is what if two or more different songs with the same name come out in the same year? Sometimes, however, I do use years if the song is pretty old (like before 1940) and the original performer is not the one known for the song. Also, I would not use the songwriter because that can lead to many, many problems.


 * See MUSTARD#Disambiguation, WikiProject Albums#Naming and Naming conventions#Album and song titles and band names. Rocket000 22:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The main problem with disambiguating by artist or by year, is that with songs, oftentimes several versions of the song will be included in a single article. I think it's a good idea to do that, but it makes it difficult to DAB. Hopefully, if the song is a big song, it can be DAB'd simply by (song). If it's not archetypal enough and it needs disambiguation, try the composer or the original artist. Or the first, biggest version. -Freekee 04:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good to stick to the original artist, because otherwise people will argue over who did the "biggest" version, or someone not familiar with the song won't know what to name the article. Always naming it after the original artist solves/prevents these issues. I could see using the year if the original artist's version is not notable and the song wouldn't have an article if it wasn't for a popular cover of it.
 * Of course, if dab. is not needed, don't use it. Rocket000 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Single: certifications
Where is the detailed info on the standards for certifications? I mean, how we're gonna edit it, is it bulleted or not, do we have to make the certificate provider, like RIAA, small (its font size), etc. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this have many of the same problems that the chart positions section of the infobox has? Perhaps we should drop this as well. --PEJL 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It must be shown in the infobox. It has something to do with the article's entirety. My comments only is to standardized the editing. Like this one below. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it tends not to get abused much since there aren't many certifications (gold, platinum, maybe a few times platinum, and sometimes silver). Chart positions, however, can be anywhere between one and a hundred, sometimes more.  The convention I've seen is an unbulleted list that puts the name of the certifying organization in small text in parentheses.  For example:
 * Platinum (ARIA)
 * Gold (RIAA, CRIA)
 * It might be a good idea to add a note to Template:Infobox Single. 17Drew 06:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That format seems a little odd, given that Gold means very different things in those two markets. I see potential for a long list of certifications for successful singles, as there are lots of certifiers. Remember that the infobox should summarize facts stated elsewhere in the article, so the certifications should be mentioned in the article body as well. Don't we end up with a similar question of how to limit which of the certifications should be mentioned in the infobox, similar to the question for chart positions? --PEJL 08:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, although each certification corresponds to a different number of sales, they all mean about the same thing since that threshold is adjusted based on the country's population. Also, most of the certifiers there don't have their own sites, so there are far less to deal with than the chart suggests.  Plus, it'd be unusual to have, say, the Malaysian certification in an article.  The reason I'd include the certification is simply because they're much less common than chart positions since most singles I've seen will chart and never be certified, and when there are multiple certifications, there's a simpler way to present them.  17Drew 09:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on why the reader is looking for certifications, if they are interested in relative sales or absolute sales. I assume there are other sources for certification info besides the official website of the issuer. --PEJL 12:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronologies by location
I've seen lots of articles using multiple chronologies for when singles are only released in some parts of the world. This tends to make the infobox unnecessarily large and can produce some ugly results. See Give It to Me, which already has three artists and then an extra three chronologies, for an example. Since Template:Infobox Single recommends only mentioning the first release date in the infobox anyway, it seems like a good idea to eradicate the chronologies by location and simply use one that goes by the songs' first official (not promo) single release date, regardless of where that release was. Any thoughts? 17Drew 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds very reasonable. On the other end of the spectrum you have for example albums by The Beatles, which generally use two chronologies, one for U.S. releases and one for UK releases. (Those are albums and not singles, but the same principle applies.) I think that is acceptable, but your example is overkill. --PEJL 08:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm only proposing it for singles. Unlike album infoboxes, single infoboxes may have more than one artist, and they may have chronologies or track listings for one or more albums.  If an album has a different order, it's a rare thing since they're promoted more and released less frequently than singles.  17Drew 09:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Talking about mess, take this as an example. Does track listing applies? This one also. How about this? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 01:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the chronologies use in Give It to Me has three because there are three artists on it; it's nothing to do with scattered release dates or anything. Each line indicates which artist did what before and after, though I agree that it's highly unnecessary to have either NF or JT's info in there, as cameos are never listed in their own chronology, so it shouldn't be in the single article itself. This case here is abuse of the template (though, I admit I've done it a few times before realising what I should do). The Extra chronologies is highly useful because it removes the need for multiple infoboxes where there are more than one notable version of a song ("Hallelujah" somes to mind, though I don't know how its article looks, but three artists I can think of have released it successfully as a single). -- linca linca  12:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it was because there were chronologies by location, made worse by the fact that there were three artists. This is how the infobox looked.  17Drew 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's really a mess. I would suggest that if a certain song features numerous artist, at least one chronology for every artist will be included preferably main chronology of their singles and not by location. --BandB (talk•contribs) 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "at most" rather than "at least". If so, that sounds like a good idea. --PEJL 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats what i am sayin'. Cheers. --BandB (talk•contribs) 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, that looked terrible. I think even with 3 chronologies it is too much. I say that with each release, it should only be the primary artist in the initial or primary release listing (i.e. Timbaland, not Nelly F or JT, and only the US release). Perhaps it would be an idea to make a link to the artist's discography page or discography section from the artist page when there are multiples in place? So something like this:

or

And that these would yeild something like this:


 * It's just a thought, but it would save a lot of hassle with these ridiculously long chronologies, and it's only one more variable to be placed in there, on an function. -- linca  linca  01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If we were to do this (no comment about whether we should) we could simplify this so that the "Discography" field only takes the link target ( rather than  ), as the template could generate the link using the "Artist" field (and avoid inconsistencies). --PEJL 09:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that could be done easily. I was just throwing the idea out there and sandboxing at the same time. So, thoughts on adding this? Pros or nos? -- linca linca  11:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. There should be a link to the discography. Couldn't we include this in all infoboxes? Flowerparty ☀ 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Music videos need some colour!
Over on the other side of the fence at WP:ALBUMS we've been discussing the newly implemented template Infobox Artist Discography. WAIT: before you go, hear me out. There's a reason I'm over here. We want to introduce a colour into our joint colouring system that differentiates music videos from video albums, as tehre seems to have been some confusion with its initial rollout. As music videos are specific to songs, and not albums, that's why I'm here. We want to use a colour. Discussion isn't that active, but we're pretty happy with using this colour. What do you guys think? We want to use the colour to reflect video albums, which is this colour (in use at the moment), while having music videos in their own (as songs and singles are in the discography listing already, we need another, distinct colour). Let me know what you guys think! -- linca linca  10:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have any articles just about a specific music video? I would hope not.  Promo videos strike me as nothing more than a sub-topic of the song/single (at least in most cases). I don't see the merit of listing them separately, to be honest - it just clutters up the discography.  It's like splitting off cover art from the LPs. Flowerparty ☀  11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with you: I hope nobody makes simply an article about a music video, however that's not what I'm adressing here: most discography articles use a separate table for discussing music videos from the songs, as the music video is generally a creation all unto itself and, though on the song's article it can easily be defined, it's more difficult to define without separating the music videos and the singles (as some music videos are not for singles, just for songs, and in contrast, many singles don't have music videos). So, in short, this colour would simply be for use in Infobox Artist Discography and Infobox Discography (a template I don't like nor use, but utilises separate sections to also address music videos). In short, I'm trying to set up a new colour to be different by having both, to avoid confusion as to which one is which. I've actually implemented the colour in Infobox Artist Discography to make sure it would work, and it works a charm. I tried to do the same on the other template, but because it transcludes its colours from the protected Infobox Album (from which both derive their colours) I was unable to complete the adjustment. Does that make sense? -- linca linca  11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No I realised, and I guess you're right about listing the videos separately - I hadn't noticed how common that was. (Although I'm not sure it's always necessary, since most artists will only make videos for their singles.  And why are we listing videos in articles with 'discography' in the title, anyway?.. It's better than having a separate 'videography' page, I guess.)  As for the colours, well I've made my rant about those elsewhere.  But if you're going to insist on a distinct colour for every possible sub-section, that's going to lead to all kinds of mess... Next you'll be suggesting the references section needs to be lime green! Flowerparty ☀  14:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't we use the same color as for video albums? --PEJL 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we're trying to distinguish individual music videos from video albums, just the same as we distinguish singles and individual songs from whole albums. -- linca linca  15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We? Flowerparty ☀ 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain how useful the color or type will be. Do music videos very often get listed in disc/videographies apart from their songs? Should they? -Freekee 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for reusing the same color for similar but different types (see WP:ALBUM). Individual music videos are about as closely related to video albums as remix albums and compilation albums are to each other. If we were to introduce a separate color for music videos, it would only be used in discographies, and only in a subset of discographies, making it quite rare, and likely not common enough for readers to learn to associate it with music videos. The whole issue also hinges on us actually using colors in discographies, which hasn't been decided yet. --PEJL 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to an earlier question, there is a separate Thriller (music video) article, since although it does need some cleanup and improvement, it's too much to be contained within the Thriller (song) article. That's the only music video article I know of.  17Drew 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the question hinges on how common it is for videos to be included in discography pages (and perhaps whether they should be included at all). I just checked several dozen of them, and there were only a handful. But they do exist. There were a couple that looked kinda weird, since song videos was the only category of recordings that didn't have a mention in the infobox. -Freekee 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is, the term "videography" is not a globally accepted term, though we do use it in some places (for instance in the U2 discography). In this case, I believe the correct usage is displayed: the videography is indicated under the discography, though arguably, discographies and videographies both fall under "Works by ^artist^", but that's not the format presently being used, and being that music is the primary output of bands and musicians, generally followed by videos (live and otherwise). As videos come secondary to music, I believe it's appropriate to continue listing videos under discographies. And since that's what I believe, I believe we need to set the music videos apart from video albums, to save the reader confusion, after all, Wikipedia is not about us editors, but about the reader and the reader's experience, something often forgotten or ignored when putting guidelines in place. -- linca linca  01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with videos being included in the discography. My question was whether we should be listing music videos at all. Seems a bit crufty. -Freekee 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction FAR
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.  O2  (息 • 吹) 01:42, 02 November 2007 (GMT)

Looking forward to another FA
The World Is Not Enough (song) has been nominated. I may be on a break for about 6 days. So folks, please work on the article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are
Dear all, I would appreciate some help with an anonymous (yet seemingly experienced) user. He insists on tagging the above article, of which I am the primary author, with an original research tag, citing this project. I amended the article to remove slightly contentious language ('metaphor'), yet he still persisted. A third opinion through the third party process found that although it "technically" contained OR, it was with acceptable standards, and 3rdParty removed OR tag. The article was then passed for GA status with no problem.

Although two independent reviewers don't have a problem, anon insists that there is a problem. I invited him to make necessary tweaks, but he suggested that would be removing a large part of it. I'm sure you'd agree that it unnecessary.

Your help/comments would be appreciated. I am quite confident that the article is acceptable. The JPS talk to me  13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Man in the Box
Was this song really in the movie Lassie like the article says? Somehow I strongly doubt it... Sheep81 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC guideline proposal
There is a conversation underway to resolve the WP:MUSIC policy on songs. Current prevalent view subsequent to a now dormant discussion at village pump seems to be to merge the song guideline with the album guideline with some recommended text changes. The conversation, such as it is, is here. I believe that this section, tagged as "under discussion", has been hanging around without discussion or resolution long enough and hope that you will help settle it there one way or another. As it stands, nobody knows whether it has authority or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider introducing a disambiguation template specific to albums and/or songs
See Retrospective (album) and If (song) for examples of where it would be useful. Bonus points and Barnstars if you introduce one that uses [[Media:Musical notes.svg]] or some other image to give such pages some distinction, as I did in the my version of "If" and my version of Retrospective... :-) &mdash; 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to lyrics and videos
Before I get into this discussion, I would like to state that I am both a longtime Wikipedia editor/administrator and an employee of Viacom/MTV Networks. I usually try to avoid mixing the two, but I think for this particular issue I can be of service in both capacities.

One of the problems that I've noticed about song articles is that they frequently link to music videos hosted on YouTube as well as lyrics hosted on various unlicensed lyric sites. Apart from the fact that this violates WP:EL, Copyrights, and the guidelines given here, it also has the practical problem of link rot (unlincensed music videos and lyrics tend to disappear due to DMCA complaints). In the old days there wasn't really a solution to this problem since the only way to get music videos and lyrics on the web was through unlicensed sources. So even if you deleted those links, someone would just add them back eventually. Recently, however, various media companies (including my employer) have decided to crawl out of the dark ages and start offering free (as in beer) commercially-licensed video and lyrics content. Seeing as how switching these unlicensed links to licensed links is in the interests of both Wikipedia and the companies offering the licensed content, I would like to know if WikiProject Songs would be receptive to me helping to switch these links. This would not be against the Conflict of interest policy, as the work would clearly be in the interest of both Wikipedia and MTV Networks. Just to be clear, I'm only talking about switching links that are currently violating policy. I'm NOT talking about adding links to articles that currently lack such links.

So for example, the link to the video in the article I_Wonder, would be changed from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7M0fvReVWE to http://www.cmt.com/videos/kellie-pickler/140907/i-wonder.jhtml. The videos hosted on MTV Network sites (MTV, VH1, CMT, etc) are fully licensed and generally much higher quality than YouTube. The only downside is that they do occasionally make you watch pre-roll ads before the videos (although YouTube has announced that they are going to start doing this as well).

For lyrics, an example would be changing the lyrics link on Gangsta's Paradise (song) from http://www.lyricsstyle.com/c/coolio/gangstasparadise.html (which seems to be broken anyway) to http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/coolio/2356128/lyrics.jhtml.

How would the members of this project feel about me making such edits? Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one has offered any feedback on this, I'm going to tentatively try fixing some of these external links. If anyone has any objections, just let me know. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

This page includes this text: "Per Wikipedia policy, please do not link to websites that are in violation of the artist's own copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works."

Putting on my security hat, I'd like to add "'In addition, music lyric sites have often proven to be sources of spyware, so links to them ought to be avoided for that reason as well'." But I don't have enough experience with this project to know whether this kind of thing is in the proper wikipedia spirit or not. SJFriedl (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering about this too. I made a post here under policy. I think it's perfectly ok to link to YouTube as long as the Youtube video is uploaded by the artist's label or by the artist's official channel. MahangaTalk 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh
I searched the web, and found many sites spelling it Faddah...which is correct? does it need to be changed on here?  C t j f 8 3  talk 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just set up a re-direct. Pustelnik (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There already is a redirect from Faddah to Fadduh, i was just asking if we need to move the page so the title says Faddah, if that is the correct spelling?  C t j f 8 3  talk 19:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if most of them read that way. -Freekee (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

greek singles
I made a single page for Peggy Zina's To Mystiko. I am a little confused about the from album part in the template. greek singles tend to feature about 3-5 songs, basically mini albums and arent always seen on a "real" full length album. This single in particular is repackaged with Ena (album) so you get two cds, the album and the single. Should this be considered an album, a single, or maybe a new category like mini-album, i dont know.Grk1011 (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say use the EP template. - eo (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't from an album, leave the "Album" line blank. But the other question is whether this is a single or not. That depends on what the record company calls it. And/or what the charts call it. We can't call it an EP, just because it has more than two songs on it. There are a lot of singles nowdays that have more than three or four songs on them. So I would assume that this record is a single - though this is only an assumption. Also, repackaging the single with another record is only repackaging, and doesn't affect the article, except maybe to mention this fact. -Freekee (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Charts
When i was editing a singles articles i noticed that there was chart information in the infobox, yet it does not show out of edit mode. I checked the project's examples and the same thing occurs. Why does the infobox not show all of the information? Here's the page: Opa Opa.Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The chart positions were removed per consensus, at Template talk:Infobox Single. anemone  │  projectors  18:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Notation
I just added some notation to the article at The Twelve Days of Christmas (song). If anyone knows of other articles where the discussion would benefit from the addition of a little notation, please feel free to let me know. As long as I either know the song or can find the music for free somewhere, I'm happy to add the notation. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help to resolve this dispute
On the All by myself song page there is currently a dispute going on. Some believe that only Eric Carmen should have an infobox on that page since he is the original recording artist, and any other artists who have covered the song do not need their own infobox as the info for them can just be mentioned in the main body.

What I was arguing was that - as based on the format on Wikiproject: Songs regarding the singles chronology - I believed that any artist who covered the song AND released it as a commercial single would also deserve their own infobox. I had two factors in my reasoning: 1. Based simply on the format of the singles chronology given on the wikiproject: songs page, the singles chronology infobox is ideally to be included on the pages for songs that were released by an artist as a commercial single - while offering links within the infobox to both the preceding and following single. Thus not including the infobox on a particular single page disrupts the chronology as the person who has followed the chronology to that page will not have a link to the following single.

My second line of reasoning was due to what I had seen practiced widely on a lot of song pages (in particular songs that have been covered by many artists ) - that had all artists who released the song as a single with their own infbox - although the infoboxes would go in order of who released the single first - but they all got their own in order to complete the singles chronology.

Of course, then again - this is not explicitly stated on the wikiproject: songs article as I had previously thought - and so now there is a dispute going on on whether or not Celine should have her own infobox on the "All by myself" page since she DID release it as a commercial single. Please help us to resolve it, Thank you. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To add my two cents (since I also commented on the All by myself article): I think the key question that needs to be resolved here has to do with the purpose and importance of singles chronology links. These links are recommended here on WP:SONGS, though very little is said about them. I would contend that they are a very useful navigation aid (I use them frequently) and that to be most useful, an artist's singles chronology must be unbroken. That is, it must be possible to navigate their entire string of singles using only those links. Editing an article to remove such a link, and thus breaking the complete chronology, seems unacceptable as it damages the rest of the chronology.

Would it be reasonable to say something along the lines of this: "If an artist's singles are linked by a singles chronology, then the article for each official single in that chronology should carry an infobox for that artist's recording with the appropriate next and previous links. In the case of covers, this means that infoboxes should be included in order to avoid breaking an existing singles chronology. Infoboxes for multiple recordings of a single song should appear in chronological order."?

Also, it's stated that the "chronology section should link to the previous...and next single", but not exactly what that means. It was suggested in the All by myself discussion that this could actually be satisfied by linking to either an article about the album on which the cover appears or even to the artist's overall discography article. However, I have never seen this in practice before. I have only ever seen singles chronology links to articles about the song, whether the recording is original or a cover. Could the intent of this be clarified? Fabtasticfoo (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa Alert- "Who Are The Brain Police"
Article is being deleted, are redirected to Freak Out. Any idea what is going on here?Pustelnik (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage of Quotation marks
I'm over with MoS. They do not want to listen. As with the guide, quotation marks are used in a logical manner. Well, FAs are incoherent. Review each line in "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Or "Smells Like Teen Spirit." (Consider the manner I used the punctuation) --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the problem. Can you please elaborate a bit? There seems to be some prior discussion I (at least) am not aware of. -- Pepve (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, according to the Manual of Style, uses "logical quotation", meaning that a comma or a period goes outside of the quotation marks when it is not part of the actual quotation. Some articles, such as Smells Like Teen Spirit, appear to have passed FA even though they use non-logical quotation, putting periods and commas inside quotation marks. I think that's what BandB means when saying FAs are inconsistent. My take on it: Yes, sometimes we will run into inconsistency; that's the nature of a large project such as Wikipedia. My advice, if you are attempting to have an article pass FA, is that you adhere to the Manual of Style and use logical quotation. Some editors in the past have argued that the American style is to use nonlogical quotation and that is fine as long as you are consistent within an article. Others have noted, though, that the British-Amercian distinction is flawed since a significant minority of American style manuals do use logical quotation. There have been very lengthy discussions over the years (see archives) at WT:MOS. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for saving. I would say that consistency is one of the best moves for Wiki to gain credibility and reliability. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Single track listings
Can we emphasize in the page to use en dashes when writing track listings? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is that needed? (Although I see no objections, en dashes seem to have consensus.) -- Pepve (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the instructions on writing track listings? It would look kind of silly to add "Use an en dash to separate song titles from times" to the existing single-sentence instructions. :-) Maybe it should say for guidelines on how to set up the track listing, please see the Albums Project. -Freekee (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very important. So that editors who aspired for FA knows what to do with basic editing. Other FAs used em dash (such a breach to MoS). The project page is not yet complete for its guidelines. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Size for image
Is 200px good for images? Other images, specially its titles, are hard to read. I think we need to somehow maximize a bit. 300? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we generally not specify image size? It's a user preference... -- Pepve (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My very concern is that, some images are hard to visualize. We need to set size also so that other editors will not argue over this issue. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the raw image size or the size of the picture as it's displayed in the article? If the latter, can you give some examples where they're displayed too big or too small, or where there are edit wars or arguments about? -Freekee (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The raw image; the uploaded one and not the image displayed in the article. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, forgot to check back here.) Non-free images should not be very large. The image resolution should not be great, as this helps prevent using the image for copyright infringements. The image should have enough resolution to show what it looks like, but on extremely detailed pictures, it won't be possible to show every bit of detail. -Freekee (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana Redirects
I'm starting to get confused about the interweaving rules of the music on Wikipedia. WP:ALM has committed itself to taking down Nirvana song articles, citing the notability rules for music as their only law, quoting the "if it doesn't chart it doesn't deserve an article" mantra. This conflicts with your idea of their not being one whole set of rules to go by. So I just want to know what you think of this and whether or not songs by Nirvana are notable. TostitosAreGross (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We aren't setting any hard rules. We're using our judgement to determine whether or not some songs are notable enough to remain separate pages. The original discussion can be found here. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I read the original discussion... Lengthy stuff. :-) I'd say that nothing is fundamentally wrong with redirecting 'apparent' non-notable song stubs to the album they first appeared on. This may of course be reverted, but you'll probably need to add sources to make them viable. The availability of sources then, is the key issue. Also, I think care should be taken not to delete usable content, but instead merging it. -- Pepve (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's the problem, they aren't non-notable. They pretty much meet any logical determination of what is notable. Finding sources isn't easy, especially with the trash you have to sort through but I know there are few alright ones, they don't have to be long articles, they only have to add something to the knowledge base that would be too long for the album page. TostitosAreGross (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead then, create one and see if it works. You may want to prepare it in userspace, that can free your effort from others for some time. It seems you'd like that. :-) And don't forget that the article may still be brought to AFD... -- Pepve (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Thing
A proposed disambiguation has been suggested at Talk:Sweet Thing, to help treat the David Bowie and Van Morrison songs appropriately.

Please do contribute. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Template
You might find this useful Template:UKChartHits; it takes one parameter, the artist ID from the linked website, and whinges if it's omitted. Saves cutting and pasting the url everywhere. Linked site is fairly stable, but I'm not sure how up to date it is. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Song Useage....whats allowed?
I can understand if the song is a main song for a TV Show or Movie, but what about random occurances a/or background use? I ask, because people keep adding Family Guy references to Never Gonna Give You Up. Clearly "Never Gonna Give You Up" is used only once in the entire series, and is used as part of a one-shot comedy sequence. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to limit such mentions to times where they have bearing on the plot (or are theme songs). Some of those aren't even notable, in my opinion, but I think it's a good compromise for keeping some trivia. -Freekee (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats why I kinda left the "rickroll" meme intact, only by sheer account of the cited source. The Family Guy reference doesn't seem to be significant in any way to the song. Unless the FG folks are trying to pin it on Ernie the Giant Chicken.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting Song articles to Artist
The re-directing of song articles to one particular artist is basically a destructive deletion of the song article and therefore prevents researchers from seeing the vital information about the song itself. Information such as the songwriter(s), awards given to the song, and links to other artists who may have recorded the song, is lost with these redirects. If there is some general feeling that these song redirects to one artist are valid, I would like to know, because the artists are already sufficiently linked-to within the song articles. One can also draw the distinction between the "song" and the "recording" of the song. It is a one:many situation, meaning the song relates to multiple uses and accolades. By example, look at some of the songs listed in the Burt Bacharach article. Most are recorded by multiple artists and therefore a redirect to one particular artist would result in a great loss of information. I feel certain my position will be supported by the various worldwide songwriter organizations as well. The Wikipedian doing these redirects is experienced and should know better, but in the spirit of constructive discussion shall remain nameless for now. It may become necessary however to examine this person's actions during his next RfA application process because it appears from past attempts to gain RfA status that there are MANY deletion issues contributing to his RfA application being turned down. I would like to see these song redirects halted.Wikibones (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for those who aren't aware, I'm the user he's talking about above. Personally, I don't see the problem with redirecting a song to an album if the song page is unlikely to be expanded beyond a stub -- WP:MUSIC even says "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". As an example, Something About a Woman by Jake Owen has been on the charts nearly 30 weeks and is struggling to get any higher than #26. I haven't found any reliable sources at all that pertain to the song proper. Therefore, it should be redirected to the album it's on. Note that should such a redirect take place, no info would be lost -- the article on Jake Owen and the article on his album both verify the song's writers, length, and chart position, which are pretty much the only verifiable bits of info in the song article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you suppose would happen if you redirected the song "Yesterday" by the Beatles to the article "Beatles", or if you redirected the song "He Stopped Loving Her Today" to the article George Jones? I believe there would be quite loss of information and quite a problem created. The same standards should apply to all songs. Songs are standalone researchable articles. To redirect a song, loses the vitals on the song. The recording however is a different animal. It is ok to include as much information as possible about a recording of a song by an artist in an artist's article, but don't you think the song as a separate article should remain? Why should a hit song be permanently tied within Wiki to one artist, when the artist's article can clearly link to the song, broadening the benefits of research. Also, the focus on what is a "notable" song and what is not "notable" should not be for one person to decide if the song was a chart hit. Good discussion and I appreciate the cooperation. Wikibones (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Wikibones (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A notable song definitely deserves a separate article if several notable persons (persons with separate biographic articles) are strongly connected to the song (and the persons are not closely connected, like playing in the same band). Once the song is performed independently by several notable artists, the song should no longer be linked to only one particular artist, or to the songwriter only. Oceanh (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

You seem unable to see that a song is a song, and a record is a record, and that both the song articles and the artist articles have one-to-many relationships to other data. Also, I cannot believe you are referencing All Music Guide, one of the most incomplete, un-updated, difficult to correct, ill-cross referenced, mistake-filled sources you can use. I know the publication well. You cannot count on that publication as much of a source. Have you ever tried to correct anything at All Music Guide?? Almost impossible. This whole song redirect thing is an absurd argument. For you to redirect songs to an artist's album page is inconsistent with every song article in Wikipedia, but you continue to want to enhance your own artist articles at the expense of other's song articles. Some of us are focused on songs, some of us are focused on artists. Let the two articles remain valuable independent sources and benefit from the existance of each...link them. Don't erase one or the other with a complete redirect. Redirecting a song articles to one artist's album is no different than someone doing an article on Atlantic Records and redirecting every artist article (anyone who ever recorded for Atlantic) to the Atlantic Records article. Like I said earlier, and I will give you another scenario, why don't you go try to redirect every song ever recorded by Frank Sinatra to the Frank Sinatra article and see what happens. Or...try someone less famous. Try taking every song recorded by Kenny Rogers and directing them to Kenny Rogers and see what happens. Where do you draw the line? Apparently your Neal McCoy article is so important to you that you want every song Neal ever recorded directed to Neal McCoy. The songs in some cases are bigger than Neal McCoy. In the same way you are using your own personal measure of what songs are "notable" and which ones are not, someone may come along (hypothetically speaking) and decide that Neal McCoy isn't "notable" enough to have an article, or that Neal McCoy needs to be redirected to a larger article on Country Music Singers. Your actions on these song redirects is destructive to the vital information on songs, and when you mix that with your subjective decisions on what song is worthy of an article and what songs are not, it gets very strange, and deserving of protest. Wikibones (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikibones, you say it would be absurd to redirect Frank Sinatra to Atlantic Records. You are correct. You also say it would be absurd to link "Yesterday" to The Beatles. Correct again. These topics are all highly notable. What Ten Pound Hammer is talking about is songs that aren't notable. We don't need articles on every song ever released. I'm happy to hear that you're dedicated to songs on Wikipedia, but feel free to add all that info to the artists articles. In the article that TPH linked to above, there are about four useful pieces of information there. Two of them are already in the artists article. The artist's article is very small to begin with. It would seem nice to include a section on his songs. Or at the very least, expand his bio/history enough to include a mention of the song along with a sentence or two of background. And if that's all there is, why have an article? You mention not wanting particular songs tied up in artist's articles. If a song has versions recorded by more than one artist, that increases its notability. Beyond all that, there is active discussion about the notability guidelines, and one point that was brought up is whether a simple charting is enough to establish notability. Personally, I think that if there's nothing to say about a song, it shouldn't have its own article. I'd rather see the info added to the artist (or album) first, and if it grown enough, then split it off. -Freekee (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The song in question was an ASCAP award winning Billboard Country chart hit. Wikibones (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I request an assessment?
I might be missing something, but I can't see any instruction on how to have an article assessed. This should probably be in the PS project page, but in the meantime, how do I get an article assessed? Grimhim (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me know the title. I will assess it, if I have ant relevant knowledge or interest. Pustelnik (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Instrumental Compositions
I've been finding a large number of articles such as Malignant Narcissism (song) and Eruption (song) which are titled "(song)", but by definition, really aren't songs at all. These are instrumental compositions (or solos) which contain absolutely no vocalisation whatsoever. (i.e. - can't be sung)

I see where someone had the right idea by renaming YYZ (song) to YYZ (track), but the article is still manages to fall into, and the infobox still reads "Song by Rush".

Encyclopedically speaking, how does someone correctly deal with instrumentals? WikHead (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Track" is a rather ambiguous disambiguation, don't you think? "YYZ (musical work)" would be more appropriate. But really, for popular music, I think song is just fine. It's the term that everybody understands. To split the categories would be a pain for navigation, since people would expect to find the instrumental &lt;airquote>songs&lt;/airquote> with all the other songs. How about a hatnote reading, Though the musical work has no singing, and is therefore not a song, it is grouped with songs, for ease of navigation on Wikipedia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freekee (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cover versions (again)
I've come across a lot of these lately, and thought "Oh, no!". Editors are just overloading articles with each and every performance, of a song, and it's not improving the articles. Criteria (set out below) seem to me to be enough to ensure we keep fancruft out whilst retaining worthy candidates. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Before adding it to the main Project page, I strongly suggest getting comments here first. That said, I agree with this - although good luck to you removing all the American Idol references; you may be fighting a losing battle with that one. - eo (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll move it here for comments. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposed new section:

Not every version of a song is notable enough to deserve inclusion in the song's article. In particular, the following should be regarded as notable: The following should not be regarded as notable:
 * A version which charted itself (e.g. Video Killed the Radio Star)
 * A version which became notable as a major reworking of the song (e.g. Rolf Harris' version of Stairway to Heaven)
 * A version performed only live, unless it is independently notable as such
 * A version only performed on a television or other "talent" show such as American Idol - these only clog the articles and will be forgotten in a very short time.

Songs of unclear notability
Hello,

there are currently about 130 articles about songs which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope (say the corresponding album or band), or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Is it possible to find some more sources of information on this topic Everyone Loves Shabbes but the Chickens? It is tagged with a notability tag, and there are currently 31 articles in the scope of wikiproject Canada which are tagged with notability concerns, so I am contacting anyone to see if the quantity of notability concern articles can be reduced, and quality increased. For more help see this note or the article talk page for a current discussion. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk  18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sound Nomination and participation
Hey all. Whilst trawling through wikipedia i cam across the Featured sound page. I noticed that there was a significant lack of regular participation in this process. At the moment there are only 15 audio rerecording that have reached featured Status and I was wondering whether it would be possible to get more involvement from people interested in music and also generally audio recordings so that the best audio on wikipedia can be truly appreciated. I hope to you participating on the page more often and that a greater community consensus can be formed here. Seddon69 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Key signatures etc.
According to project guidelines it is advisable to include a section on "Musical features such as chorus or verse key signature, recording techniques used, musical techniques, etc." It's easy to provide references for songs by articles such as The Beatles but extremely difficult for the majority of artists. Is it considered 'original research' to simply state key signatures etc. or is this only advisable where reference can be made to professional criticism/artist interviews? Ta. Cavie78 (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant RfC - opinions requested
There is a discussion about the benefits of full articles for marginally notable songs, as opposed to redirects to the album in question, currently ongoing at Talk:Send a Message to My Heart. I'd appreciate if more eyes could go over there and take a look, as currently the discussion is starting to drift in an unconstructive direction. Thanks for the assist. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Go My Way and Go my way
Silly situation. --68.161.166.157 (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The second one is capitalized wrong. Those should be disambiguated by the years. -Freekee (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun
This song received a heap of airplay in Oz on triple J - someone put a notability tag on it and I got a few online refs but someone may want to add a few more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of "Box of Rain" was plagiarized...
As a new editor, I happened upon a partially completed article; Box of Rain. I did what I could to add to it and make it a better article, because it really was sweet, bandmate Phil Lesh having a tune including the nuances in his head, but no lyrics-- and wanting to sing a completed song dedicated entirely to his terminally ill father before he died. By that time, Robert Hunter wrote an amazing number of Grateful Dead songs, and said the writing of the lyrics came as "fast as the pen would pull". (Something like that, anyway.)

But the key problem for me was that whomever began this article when I found it had plagiarized nearly every sentence fron a Grateful Dead source- here:. More specifically; here:. No matter my newbie efforts, the facts still remain. I really would like to see a page done for each song on American Beauty, which I consider to be their best studio album together, even if it WAS years before my time! At the same time, I'm ashamed that I let this page go even this long, once I figured out where the lyrics were coming from at first. Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Songs deserving their own article.....or not....
Before I alienate half the WP editors with a poor attempt at cleanup, I'd like some clarification from interested parties regarding singles....

The WP:MUSIC guideline (for songs) states : "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

Until now, when I've been categorising articles on singles, I've generally ignored this and categorised merrily (or chickened out and left the article for someone else to deal with !). However, I'm wondering if this has been the correct approach. In order to follow the above guideline, I now intend to check the notability of each single - if it doesn't meet the criteria above (in my opinion), then I'm going to change the article to a redirect back to the group (or album). If there are lots of singles for a group which fail the above criteria, I may create a discography page (or a discography section on the bands page - depending on how big that article is) and summarise them there.

Ok - that's what I intend to do - is it a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines, or do you have a better set of rules I can follow ? CultureDrone (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see there was something along these lines at Talk:Send a Message to My Heart as mentioned above - but that seemed to just degrade into insults... it also seemed to fail to differentiate between verifiability and notability - I'm not disputing that these singles exist, or the fact that they reached chart position x in country y, but merely whether they're deserving of their own articles... CultureDrone (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Digging further, I see this whole area is somewhat contentious - is there actually an policy on it, or is it a case of 'do what you think is best under the guidelines and wait for the fallout from editors who are upset' CultureDrone (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is contentious, and non-consensus. I would love to see a lot of them back-merged. Until they are, adding categories is not an endorsement of the viability of the article. -Freekee (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Explicit song titles
When a song title is originally explicit, but altered for promotion purposes, should the name of the article be the original explicit title, or the altered censored title? DiverseMentality  (Talk)   (Contribs)  22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, and also has a rule that the official title should be used whenever possible. On the other hand, it also says that the most common title should be used. Since both are valid titles, a redirect should be set up for the one that's not the article title, so either one can be linked from other articles. -Freekee (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh okay, thank you for the response. DiverseMentality   (Talk)   (Contribs)  01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Song to the Siren
Hi, I created an article for Song to the Siren but it still needs assessment. Anyone who has the time is most welcome to rate/evaluate it. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming and Orthography of Spanish song titles
Dear all,

I discovered in many Thalía-related articles, that both in the title and in the article body, titles of songs and albums are written with initial Upper Case for every word. I just would like you to know, according to the norm of Spanish Ortography, in Spanish language titles only the first word goes with initial upper case, all the other should be written with lower cases, except for proper names in the title, of course. For reference, see: mayúsculas — Diccionario panhispánico de dudas, Royal Spanish Academy, § 4.17.

Some examples for correct and incorrect naming of Spanish titles:


 * CORRECT: Entre el mar y una estrella / INCORRECT: Entre El Mar Y Una Estrella; Entre el Mar y una Estrella, etc.
 * CORRECT: Piel morena / INCORRECT: Piel Morena
 * CORRECT: Amor a la Mexicana, if you refer to one and only person by "Mexicana" (as personification), and also CORRECT: Amor a la mexicana, when you refer to "the Mexican people" in general.

I corrected all the links and moved incorrectly named articles to the correctly written form for Thalía's articles. Please be aware of this rule.

Regards, --Mextalk 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Record Label Task Force
Hello, I thought some members here might like to join the task force I have created for record labels. If you would like to join you can do so here.

Izzy007 Talk 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)