Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Songs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

Disambiguation page for "Inhaler" song vs artist[edit]

The wiki music entry for "Inhaler" is specific to the song "inhaler", however there is also an artist named "inhaler" who has been releasing albums since 2002.

Having said, this, the Hooverphonic song "inhaler" is totally awesome! (so is most of "inhaler"s stuff too imo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.41.175 (talk) 06:11, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Unwell genre add[edit]

This Matchbox Twenty song is more than just a pop rock, it also more of an alternative rock song and this band was known as both an alternative rock and pop rock group. I added it with a reference to both genres and if you don't believe me, you may weigh-in at my talk: User talk:Hjfcool#Unwell (song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfcool (talkcontribs) 23:03, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

OMEGA[edit]

Pearls in her hair and Evil Ebenezer's I'm leaving song.

B-sides[edit]

Should b-sides be categorized as singles? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think so. B-sides chart (if you're the Beatles), so I think we kinda have to categorize them as such. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Then the questions are
  1. Do fans ask to buy the b-sides?
  2. Do b-sides get awards i.e. gold, platinum etc?
  3. Do b-sides get a mention in books like, for example, "Guinness Book of Hit Records" (or whatever the correct title is!)?
  4. If Beatles deserve a special mention then why not other acts, sauce for the goose etc.?
If the answer to these 4 questions is a unreserved yes, then I would have to agree with you.
--Richhoncho (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richhoncho:

  1. Certainly sometimes the b-side is the reason fans buy a disc?
  2. I don't know lol.
  3. I'm not familiar with that title. They do get mentioned (separately, if they charted) in books regarding the U.S. charts, such as the two that I have at hand.
  4. All acts deserve mention. It's just that it's difficult to track, and I used the Beatles as an example because they are probably one of the few artists whose B-sides have ever actually charted. I mean, it's extremely rare for a b-side to chart. - Bossanoven (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You also need to read List of best-selling singles and explain why the b-sides are not mentioned (although double a-sides are). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There doesn't seem to much discussion here, even though I notified the music project. Does anybody have any objection if I change the guidelines to state clearly that "single equates to an A-side? @Bossanoven:. I don't think you have come up yet with any reasonable justification for classifying b-sides as "singles." Is there anything else you wish to add? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Although the record single (78, 45) has an A- and B-side, Billboard only lists the charting (usually A-) side as a "Top", "Best Selling", or "Hot" single (Whitburn Top R&B Singles 1942–1988). It only lists B-sides that have charted on their own. So in this context, "single" is usually synonymous with "A-side". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't oppose the change, but I don't think the statement is entirely accurate. B sides can chart, be promoted like the A sides, receive airplay, but yes, like Ojorojo said, "Single" is normally synonymous with the A side of a record. --Lapadite (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I can only think of one example where the plastic was bought because of the B-side (a jukebox hit), but in that instance only the A-side was listed. There are many examples where the A & B-sides were swapped and reissued and should be categorized as A-side accordingly. Do you have examples so the wording can be as helpful as possible? Now there is a discussion more than happy to discuss on the talkpage here before doing anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "single equates to an A-side" goes too far. Perhaps something like "Singles are those songs that have appeared on a recognized singles chart (such as Billboard's Hot 100) or have been promoted as potential hits (artist announcements, press packages, advertising, etc.)" This way, an A- or B-side (or both) could be "singles". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ojorojo, that's much better than my suggesttion, but does it exclude b-sides that are, say, mentioned on the artwork, i.e. A-side b/w B-side? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
PS. Bossanoven has drawn my attention that if, say Billboard lists both A & B-sides some editors will use that to confirm the B-side is an A-side. Your thoughts? Should wording be clearer on this point? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rich, the Beatles had a whole bunch of B-sides chart. Some of them might be double A-sides, that is something that I cannot distinguish with my sources. Now wouldn't it be weird to not categorize them as singles? - Bossanoven (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about B-sides being categorized as "singles" I think the consensus that a B-side is not a single, but an A-side is. So if a double A-side is released then it is correct to list both a singles, i.e. Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like the consensus is rather that both A and B-sides can be considered singles as long as they chart on Billboard. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples please. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's my take on it. And then Ojorojo's post from 16:01, 19 February 2015. So, it seems to be about split in half. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples please (second request) per your post 21:20. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples of B-sides charting? "I Saw Her Standing There", "You Can't Do That" by the Beatles, "Let's Spend the Night Together" by the Rolling Stones. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. LStNT was a double A-side, the other 2 surprise me. I shall wait for Ojorojo's (or anybody else's) comment. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My refs don't mention an A- or B-side, but some singles are marked "A" or "B". We should go with WP:RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Number One Crush is another example of a b side that charted. Lapadite (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
For a brief time (ca. 1956–1958), Whitburn sometimes uses "Juke Box flip" or "Best Seller flip", for the second side of a double-sided hit when they entered the chart on the same date (Top R&B Singles 1942–1988 entries for Ray Charles, Fats Domino, Little Richard, etc.) However, when both sides show different entry dates, both are listed as being on the "Jockeys", Juke Box", or "Best Seller" charts as applicable (after these charts were consolidated in late 1958, no there is no distinction). Billboard lists the "leading side" in caps, adding, "When significant action is reported on both sides of a record, points are combined to determine position on the chart. In such a case, both sides are listed in bold type [caps], the leading side on top".[1] Some of the singles aren't marked A or B;[2], [3], [4] "Call It Stormy Monday (But Tuesday Is Just as Bad)" is labeled as the B-side (the A-side didn't chart). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ojorojo: , Didn't disagree with anything you said, I was more concerned with how others might interpret. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf. Now we need to agree the wording. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't spend any time on the background of why this came up, but I had my suspicions. So it would be helpful to know how the terminology is to be used (discographies, categories, infoboxes, etc.) The problem seems to be that RS do not use the terms A-, B-, double A-, etc. consistently. The A-side and B-side article has very few references and makes it seem more cut and dry than it really is, IMO. Maybe use my earlier "Singles are those songs that have appeared on a recognized singles chart (such as Billboard's Hot 100) or have been promoted as potential hits (artist announcements, press packages, advertising, etc.)" as a starting point and de-emphasize referring to A/B, lead/flip, etc. This may work better in the download age. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Poinciana[edit]

"based on a Cuban folk tune "La canción del árbol" ("The song of the tree")". So it says everywhere. With no attribution/reference. As a Spanish speaker I can't find this mythical original song.

WP:SONGCOVER changes[edit]

Should the WP:SONGCOVER guideline be loosened to include more sources?

Existing

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

  • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
  • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
Proposed

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if it meets the standard inclusion policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research.

  • All information about the cover song must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the song and the artist
  • The artist should be notable enough for a standalone article
  • The due weight of the cover depends on its importance and level of coverage in reliable sources. A cover that achieves independent commercial success (eg: Joe Cocker's version of "With A Little Help From My Friends", Wet Wet Wet's cover of "Love Is All Around") should obtain more coverage than a single news report of performing the cover in concert.

The proposal would remove the requirement that the reliable source is discussing the song itself, rather than the cover version, and it would remove the requirement that the cover version be notable per NSONGS. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I've recently had a discussion about this project guideline, and would like to propose a change to the following:

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if it meets the standard inclusion policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research.

  • All information about the cover song must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the song and the artist
  • The artist should be notable enough for a standalone article
  • The due weight of the cover depends on its importance and level of coverage in reliable sources. A cover that achieves independent commercial success (eg: Joe Cocker's version of "With A Little Help From My Friends", Wet Wet Wet's cover of "Love Is All Around") should obtain more coverage than a single news report of performing the cover in concert.

My view is this reflects what I see happening in numerous song GAs and DYKs, and so it accurately reflects what the community wants to do. Thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

According to your proposal, would lists such as Come Together#Other notable covers be acceptable if we added sources to the unsourced mentions, or do you think covers should only be added if there is enough information for at least a small paragraph, as the ones above that list? Victão Lopes Fala! 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably not, no. I'd have to go through it on a case by case basis, or split the whole lot into something like List of artists covering songs by the Beatles. I'd keep some of it, particularly anything that charted as a single, then anything that received substantial coverage in sources (say, if the arrangement was wildly different, such as Yes version of America (Paul Simon song)). However, with that level of covers, I think WP:DUE would mandate not everything in the list should be included. I would probably never include a tribute band's cover of song, even notable ones like Bjorn Again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, your quoted text above contains your proposal. The following is the existing guideline wording:

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:
 • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
 • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

So what you are proposing is a loosening of the requirement such that the cover version can be mentioned in any kind of reliable source rather than "a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)". The part about NPOV, NOR and Verifiability should not need to be stated, since all Wikipedia text must follow these policies. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's more a proposal to use a bit more discretion over things and fall back on local consensus and core content policies, rather than going with hard and fast rules. You shouldn't have to state V, NOR and NPOV but I think it does no harm to explicitly put them in, as it's not required knowledge, particularly for newcomers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, to clarify what you are proposing, this is the kind of reliable source that was acceptable in the existing SONGCOVER guideline:
The book talks about various songs such as "Long Tall Sally" and it mentions some of the cover versions. Birnbaum says that Little Richard's "Long Tall Sally" was covered by Pat Boone, Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Wanda Jackson, the Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent and Jerry Lee Lewis. The following sources are not acceptable under the existing SONGCOVER guideline:
So this shows a gamut of sources, some not very reliable, others quite reliable. None of these would be acceptable per SONGCOVER, which must by why Ritchie333 is looking to loosen the guideline. I think it is likely that Ritchie333 is seeking to include sources such as the last three in my above list. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
For me, any cover by a notable artist could be added to a list of covers, as long as a reliable source is cited. More notable covers will of course be better explained with subsections or paragraphs. But I support your proposal for now, if Binksternet described it right. Victão Lopes Fala! 21:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've got the idea - in the specific instance of "Long Tall Sally" I might use the latter three sources, which look fine, though I would probably in that instance do no more than bolt the bands onto an existing sentence. That's about all that WP:DUE requires there. Again, the idea is you could do this rather than you should or should not. The specific incident that kicked this off, by the way, was a disagreement over whether or not to include Sarah Vaughan and Tenacious D's covers of "You Never Give Me Your Money" - I thought they should because the style and performance was significantly different to the original (as backed up by sources in both cases) and it's not a song that's covered very often, so any RS mentioning it carries more significance than, say "Yesterday". However, I wouldn't be inclined to mention The Bootleg Beatles covering it, unless a RS had some other unusual fact that was worth dropping in. Anyway, horses for courses. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
With the proposed language, would a reference to a track listing in the discography section of an artist's biography, AllMusic, or Billboard be considered an RS? Or should the bar be a little higher? How much "discussion" (previous language) in the RS would make it suitable for inclusion? It seems that something more than confirmation of the song's existence should be required. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I probably wouldn't. Most of the time when I've sourced off AllMusic, I've tried to include some opinion of the difference between a cover and the original. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Then maybe add to the proposed first criterion: "All information about the song cover must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the song and artist. Bare listings, such as in a discography, album track listing, performance list, etc. without any critical commentary do not meet this requirement." Otherwise, about any song by a notable artist could be added to an article (AllMusic, Billboard, etc. album reviews include track listings, although only a few songs are actually discussed by the reviewer). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Very enlightening post, Binksternet! But I must be missing something. Why would the three sources you cited (i.e. the book Riot on Sunset Strip: Rock 'n' Roll's Last Stand in Hollywood, the book All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul, and the website AllMusic) be categorised, per WP:SONGCOVER, as "not acceptable"? -The Gnome (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Because the sources are talking about the particular rendition rather than the song. SONGCOVER says that the reliable source must be "on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)." So the books All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul and Riot on Sunset Strip: Rock 'n' Roll's Last Stand in Hollywood, both of which discuss the career of the Rivingtons, are not talking about the original song, they are talking about the rendition by the Rivingtons. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. This clearly cannot stand. The rule must be amended to accommodate such sources, since the notability over-riding principle does not allow exclusions of notable information on account of technicalities, e.g. song nomenclature. -The Gnome (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Binksternet and I had a discussion about the existing policy in WP:SONGCOVER last night on Talk:Be_My_Baby#Cover_songs. I think most of the problem is that WP:SONGCOVER is so poorly worded and we may be having trouble with the definitions.
  1. A song article is about the "song," not about the artist who first charted with it.
  2. A rendition includes the original single and "rendition" is overused in WP:SONGCOVER. Does it mean "this rendition", "original rendition" or "all renditions?" In fact, the term cover-version is not in WP:SONGCOVER.
  3. Currently, the first bullet in WP:SONGCOVER requires that the rendition (cover version) be discussed by reliable sources, I don't see how that this has been construed to mean that the original single (rendition) must be discussed, or the article's subject must be about the cover version -- discussed simply means discussed -- two sentences is a discussion.
  4. The second bullet in WP:SONGCOVER goes to standard notability requirement in WP:NSONG. However, a careful reading of WP:NSONG reveals that the Notability section and the requirement for creating a new song article have been commingled. Only the first three sentences of WP:NSONG pertain to Notability, the rest of WP:NSONG deals with when to create a Song article and has nothing to do with cover versions (renditions)WP:SONGCOVER.
I believe the first problem lies in WP:SONGCOVER.

WP:SONGCOVER (my suggested edit in strikethru)

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

  • the rendition cover version is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
  • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
For lists of recordings by date, use an instance of {{{date}}} – for each entry; see WP:DATELIST.
The second problem is in WP:NSONG. Notability is the requirement for articles -- all of the various contents of an article generally need not meet Notabiliy -- WP:SONGCOVER seems to be an exception to the rule. (added comment: But, the rules for creating a song-article surely do not apply to WP:SONGCOVER.)009o9 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NSONG(my suggestions in bold)

Notability:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3]

Song article creation:

Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

  1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
  2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
  3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions.

Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position.

  • Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
  • Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and Wikibooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content.
Finally, I am a no vote on requiring that the subject/artist already have an article, if the cover version is already WP:RS and Notable, why would we make the bar even higher? These mentions help emerging artists get their articles started (eliminating orphans) and help the artists to avoid AfD nominations. Additionally cover-songs are good for the industry, the writers and composers are getting paid through Sony and others, engineers are getting additional work, and the best music is performed when the artist is young. Why would we be interested in removing facts about artists that may one day be legendary?009o9 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If they are not legendary now, the information cannot be included per WP:CRYSTAL. Otherwise we could include Bringers of Darkness' "hardcore" cover of "Yesterday", cited to a passing mention of their fourth on the bill gig in the Boise Advertiser, which would make the article unwieldily. And remember WP:IAR - guidelines are not rules set in stone and dictated by executive fiat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you for performances, tours and performances are generally not published works. But in your example, it's highly unlikely that the song, performed by a garage-band is going to be discussed WP:RS (cruft is going to be added no matter what the guidelines says -- garage bands don't care about guidelines). In the case of a published recording, I think that discussing the song under WP:RS is already a high bar to hurdle.
There is also another level of cover, that I haven't seen discussed, and that is, when is a second Template:Infobox single is added to song article? After all, the original artist rarely owns the song, and even then, the owners will licence cover versions over time. Shouldn't that policy be also be defined/referenced in WP:SONGCOVER?
Apparently, I don't agree with your reading of WP:CRYSTAL, the second sentence begins with "All articles...". WP:COVERSONG already raises the bar for bullet-points, almost to the Notability requirement as an article.
IMHO Tightening the guideline won't stop the garage bands from adding their cover, but it will make it easier for impatient editors to wholesale delete/blank notable covers without reading the reference.11:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW: One way to detect cruft, would be to create bot that searches for cover-version entries that are not contained in the WP:DATELIST template, vandals won't bother to take the time to figure out how to use it. 009o9 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@009o9: A couple of questions about your proposed language: When would a rendition meet the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS, but not be discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song? In other words, why have the second criterion? I don't think that covers need to be notable enough for a stand alone article, but agree that the artist should. Also how much "discussion" meets the requirement? I think this needs qualification, such as "non-trivial" or "substantive". Otherwise, using Ritchie333's example, lumping a list of songs in with a blurb about a concert in an obscure publication may meet RS and open the door for many unimportant covers. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, but when Melissa Manchester got blanked from a cover version section Be My Baby. with two references, this piqued my interest. My suggestions in talkquote was provided mainly to display how WP:COVERSONG has been misinterpreted. I'm not sure why the first bulletpoint is so convoluted and circular. I had never given much thought to cover version sections because they are so trivial, I may try to find some time to examine how WP:COVERSONG got the way it is today. I assume that WP:COVERSONG reached some sort of consensus in the past, we should look into that. 009o9 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I will see if I can find time to wade through WP:COVERDISCUSS some time this week.009o9 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I think we should have a robust standard for how significant was the performance or the recorded cover version. If the cover version had a lasting impact that would be best. Whatever we decide, I hope very much that it will specifically address all the Chipmunk covers and all the Glee covers. That would help me figure out what to do with that person from near St Louis, Missouri, who spams Glee and Chipmunk covers throughout all the song articles, and has been doing it for a couple of years.[112] Sheesh. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you bring up Glee, this discussion should probably include both Television and Film workgroups, since WP:COVERSONG would also include those performances. WP:SONGCOVER would undoubtedly be used/quoted to manipulate policy in their domain(s).
My concern here is not to promote new artists, it is the interlinking (wiki-markup) that helps determine whether an artist's article is even possible. The old rule of thumb is three incoming wikilinks (which I still go by), but that guideline has been reduced to one incoming wikilink. I can have four good references for an article, but if I don't have an incoming wiki-link, the article tagged by a bot as an orphan.
Your proposal is certainly better than the existing, the opening para is good, but I have concerns...
  • All (is this word needed?) information about the cover song must be attributed to a reliable source that mentions both the (which song?) song and the artist (which artist?)
  • The artist should be notable enough for a standalone article (This does not say the artist must have an standalone article only that (s)he is notable enough to have one.)
  • The due weight of the cover depends on its importance and level of coverage in reliable sources. A cover that achieves independent commercial success (eg: Joe Cocker's version of "With A Little Help From My Friends", Wet Wet Wet's cover of "Love Is All Around") should obtain more coverage than a single news report of performing the cover in concert. (So if a cover version has more coverage now in 2015 than the surviving coverage for the original release, does the new cover version assume the article's lede?)
  1. Does WP:SONGCOVER apply to the entire Wikipedia? I.e., Film, Television, Radio, Podcasting, etc? If not, then it should say so.
  2. You've addressed Due weight, but not secondary Infoboxes, as for flow, due weight is a problematic way to dictate writing style, why not just stick to chronological order since we are providing a historical account?
  3. Charting is also becoming problematic, Billboard Magazine recently destroyed their archives and we don't know who is going to win in the digital "spins" arena. The Gavin report is long gone and a lot of Wikipedia editors loathe YouTube stats. Most importantly, iTunes is tight-lipped about their sales figures. (009o9)
@Binksternet: I think we agree 1) "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)" is too restrictive and needs to go, 2) there needs to be some threshold for inclusion in articles besides a mere mention in a RS. However, besides sales charts & awards, how would "significance" or "lasting impact" be measured? (I don't think that many RS would be so clear). For your examples of covers, those without refs (most) can be removed as unreferenced. For those with references, do they actually discuss the cover or just include it in a track or performance listing? —Ojorojo (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Throwing this out to test the water. Since statistics have been brought up, What would be a recommended threshold view-count for a YouTube cover-song, from an official channel, that has no other coverage for inclusion?009o9 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed My outline for WP:COVERSONG update covering concerns expressed. 009o9 (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if it meets the standard inclusion policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. For cover-renditions, there are two cases to consider:

Case 1 (For brief mentions in cover song sections or lists of cover songs.)

  • Information about the covering-rendition is attributed with at least one reference from a reliable source that:
    • mentions or discusses details about the covered-song, the covering-rendition and the covering-artist or,
    • demonstrates the covering-rendition was performed on a national television show or feature film or,
    • demonstrates audio/visual play-count that exceeds 1,000,000 on a reputable online service or,
    • demonstrates ranking on national or significant music or sales charts or,
    • demonstrates a nomination or win of a notable award for the covering-rendition.
For lists of recordings, or notable performances by date, use an instance of {{Timeline-event}} for each entry; see WP:DATELIST.

Case 2 (For recorded covering-renditions that would otherwise qualify for a stand-alone article.)

  • If the covering-rendition itself meets the requirements at WP:NSONGS, an appropriate Infobox ( {{Infobox single}} or {{Infobox song}}) may be added to the song article in release-date chronological order, and well sourced details about the covering-rendition may be merged into the body of the song-article.

In both cases, song-article content is subject to WP:DUE.

  • Note 1. These guidelines apply to song-articles, other WikiProjects may have differing guidelines; for example, guidelines may differ for cover versions listed in film articles or television episode lists.


Sorry, but your proposal is too complex and adds new terminology (covering-rendition, etc.) and elements (infobox). I think we should stick with Binsternet's initial proposal, with a brief and simple modification to limit scattershot cover additions. —Ojorojo (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have problems with the original proposed, I think it will just cause more contention because the term are ill-defined. In the first bullet alone... What does "All information" mean? Does it mean all the information that is allowed in the song article? Direct quotes only? What "artist" and why? Does this mean the artist that has covered the song, or the artist who did the original rendition? If it means the artist who did original rendition, why is that information required to be in the referenced source? This is a song article not an article about an artist, discussing the writers or composer(s) would be more appropriate in that regard.
We have three items we are discussing, the song, the original rendition and the new rendition. Covering-rendition makes it absolutely clear that this is the new rendition.009o9 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that this problem be approached from the viewpoint of the information the Wikipedia wants, rather than the information someone doesn't want. For instance, narrowing the scope to: "demonstrates the covering-rendition was performed on a primetime national television show or feature film or," would eliminate almost all possibility of Chipmunk cover versions. I personally don't have a problem with Glee cover performance one-liners in the last section of song articles as long as the editor can provide the season and episode number, or other concrete reference. 009o9 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Popdust.com for reviews[edit]

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

Infobox standard merge with Inbox song[edit]

This recent infobox merge[113] retains the Infobox standard's extra fields for original artist=, recordings= and performances=, in addition to the Infobox song's artist=. Add your comments at Template talk:Infobox song#Merge with Infobox standard. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable song?[edit]

Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift#Angels Smile. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)