Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Linking "Warm Kitty", the song, to "Big Bang Theory", the television show

I'd like to see the above happen. The episodes that include this song are my favorites of BBT. It's also interesting that the title is referred to differently on the show than the actual title. It's a fun thing for me and one reason that I'm taking the time to write this is that I met my son's girlfriend this evening and it is her favorite show too, and she knows the lyrics. I think a lot of people would like to see this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.229.177 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 February 2012‎

Naming conventions for list articles

Feedback requested Presently, Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers contains a hodge-podge of naming schemes, including "List of [x] songs", "List of songs recorded by [x]", etc. Could someone suggest some streamlined fashion for how these should be named? For what it's worth, it also seems like mixing composers together with performers is a bad idea: part of the problem will be solved if we can extract "List of songs with lyrics by [x]" from "List of songs [x] played on"—those are two evidently and significantly different schemes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that mixing composers together with performers is a bad idea, and I welcome an attempt to standardise the names of these articles. How about dividing the category into, say, two subcategories, Category:Lists of songs by author and Category:Lists of songs by performer? Also, my preference would be for the article titles to be in the form "List of songs recorded by [x]" or "List of songs written by [x]", as the alternatives are more likely to be confused. For example, a reader could quite easily think that List of Free songs refers to all songs for which the copyright has expired, or that List of Fun songs comprises songs that are, well, fun to listen to. Similarly, "List of Bob Dylan songs" would not make clear whether this was a list of songs either recorded or written by Dylan. Therefore, I feel that the clearer and more appropriate titles for these articles would be "List of songs recorded by Free", "List of songs recorded by Fun", "List of songs written by Bob Dylan", "List of songs recorded by Bob Dylan", etc. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be a "List of songs recorded by [x]" as often artists will record songs by other artist. The naming convention "List of songs by [x]" is confusing. The naming convention should be such that you can disambiguate between List of songs: "written by [x]", "recorded by [x]", "performed by [x]" though i am less happy with the later because I associate perform with performing live on stage. etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP Policy say that article names should follow WP:NDESC and WP:PRECISION. "List of [x] songs" and/or "List of songs by [x]" do NOT meet the criteria of these two policies, being neither descriptive nor precise. This leaves the debate at how we should differentiate, whether by recording, by performance or are there other suggestions out there? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NDESC has no application here. There's nothing non-neutral or judgmental about either title. WP:PRECISION could apply to this case had the original title been something like "[Artist] songs." "List of [Artist] songs" meets WP:PRECISION since it clearly indicates whose songs are being listed without ambiguity. "List of [Artist] songs" can be reasonably and unambiguously interpreted as a complete, general list of songs recorded by an artist during their career.Father McKenzie (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is so clear to you that it means "recorded," (as opposed to "performed by" or "written and recorded by", say?) why can't we specify recorded? I cannot fathom anybody's objection to clarity. My point still stands, "List of [x] songs" fails WP:PRECISE, saying as it does, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that and WP:NDESC states, "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view". If this was not the case the following recent move would not have been necessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that "List of [Artist] songs" is unambiguous. I believe that a reader could quite reasonably think that, say, "List of Boston songs" refers to songs about the city Boston, rather than songs by the American rock band Boston – they wouldn't make that mistake if the article's title were "List of songs recorded by Boston". Would "List of Elvis Presley songs" refer to songs that Presley recorded, songs that he wrote, songs about him, or some combination of all three? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• A note regarding the existence of this discussion has been placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. It would be nice to close out once and for all. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I came here specifically to open a discussion on this very topic, so I'm glad to see someone else already has—and so recently! I would like to state my preference for "songs recorded by X" and "songs written by X", but I also agree that "songs performed by X" can be misleading. Perhaps "songs featuring X" would be better? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• "List of songs recorded by X" is unambiguous and IMHO clearer than "list of X songs". It would also make more sense to have one category for lists by author and one for lists by performer, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Recap

This discussion has been ongoing for two weeks and notice has been placed on a number of related projects. I think we now have to move this along while at the same time welcoming and encouraging more comments.

Barring one contributor, we have all plumped for “List of Songs recorded by [artist].” This seems to suggest that all the entries in the present category should be along the following lines – List of songs (action) by (person).

I am reading a consensus to empty the main category Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers, diffusing the various entries into relevant sub-categories of songs. Am I correct or are we considering deletion of the category?

Does anybody have any proposal what should be included in the guidelines for WP:SONG to close this out? --Richhoncho (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question Is there a difference between a List of songs by Performer X and the articles entitled Discography of Performer X as in found in Category:Discographies. There are at least 2000 articles in the category. Is there overlap here? --Mike Cline (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  I believe discographies usually list releases such as albums, singles etc., not every song recorded by the artist. Jafeluv (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Discographies are for released albums, released singles and songs from albums that chart. List of songs performed/recorded by XYZ are indexs of all of the songs recorded by an artist, and should include songs from every album + b-sides from singles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • And sometimes, if properly sourced, songs that the artist has recorded that remains unreleased or has leaked online. Zac  02:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers

Songs by writer, songs by production, songs recorded have now all being moved out into their own relevant category. What is left in the category is quite dissimilar in naming and/or content. Does anybody have any suggestions what to do with the remaining 35 members of the category? Unless anybody has any idea for naming conventions, my thought would be to empty the members to Category:Lists of songs which could also do with a little consideration --Richhoncho (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of those remaining are still essentially "by-performer" lists, e.g. List of songs covered by The Beatles, Repertoire of Plácido Domingo, List of Genesis medleys etc. It could also make sense to make a separate category for lists by original artist, since there are quite a few lists of the type "list of cover versions of X songs". Jafeluv (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish I considered it as simple as that, here’s some of the main considerations :-

• Repertoire of Plácido Domingo – this is a list of Operas not songs, but there to categorize it?
  • You can use Category:Opera-related lists for Repertoire of Plácido Domingo. Remove both Category:Lists_of_songs and Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers since it is not a list of songs but a list of operas (each a couple of hours long, not just a "song"). 83.79.45.95 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Some of the lists are one-offs, List of songs introduced by Frank Sinatra, List of Runrig's Gaelic Songs, Emmylou Harris appearances. Perhaps these should be moved to the Lists of songs as a temporary measure.
• Those that use the word, "collaborations", most songs are collaborations! Exemplified by List of songs by David Foster which includes produced, written and arranged by, but not performed.
• The Presley hit singles don’t really belong here, they are more discography entries, rather that song entries, but where should they go?
• Please note: I have omitted the lists containing the word “cover” because I think there are issues there as well, and this is enough post for the moment.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved otherwise: [1] -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not unhappy with the renaming, but the songs weren't actually recorded on "Sun label" they were recorded on tape for release by the Sun label. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, a better name is possible. -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC about iTunes as a source for release histories

Hi, would appreciate it if you could take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking songs without articles

What is the style convention for dealing with songs that don't have articles of their own? Is it better to link to the album the song comes from, or to not link at all? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NSONGS, should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems to refer to creating a redirect such that linking to the song title will redirect to another page. I was referring to the act of wikilinking the song title from another page: assuming that an article (redirect or otherwise) with the name of the song does not exist, should the song title be wikilinked to an album, or not wikilinked at all? Or should the redirect just be created and moot the issue? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's misleading and makes the user think the song has an article, only to find out it does not. No I do not think it's okay to link songs without articles to album articles, unless it's a redirect that was typed into the search box. If it doesn't have it's own article, it should not have a link. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "misleading the user into thinking a song has an article" is a valid argument against the practice. The main point of wikilinking is to provide further information on a topic; a user should not assume that a wikilink automatically means that the topic linked has an article of its own and, if they do, should not be dissatisfied to instead be linked to an article that has the most possible information on a topic. To reiterate my opinion from your talk page: "Personally, I think allowing links to albums are a good way to (1) get information about a song, even if it's not fully notable enough to have its own article; and (2) disambiguate which song with a given title is being referred to." —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually my best reason has to deal with the Queen album articles. Each some on most of the albums had a link, most of them just linked to a different part of the page that described the song, BUT OTHERS linked actual articles solely dedicated to the song. It was rather confusing it made learning from the article bothersome, and not at all helpful. If instead the only songs with links were the ones with independent articles, it'd not only look more tidy, but also display the proper information the links are there for (to bring you to that article the link implies you will go to) I like redirects only when typed into the search box, because that tells you it doesn't have it's own article BUT you can learn about it from going to the album page, but in some cases what if the song does have an article, but the person linking it doesn't know this and he/she instead links it to the album. This would lead to the link not leading to the best article it can. OK an example: The song Dumb by Nirvana was under a great debate whether it should have an article or not, the consensus is no, but many people may expect it to have one. So in an article if you see the song "Dumb" with a link and it only takes you to the In Utero page, it'd be rather annoying in my opinion and it is best if there was just no link on the song title at all. What if every song on In Utero had a link linking to In Utero except for the 4 songs with their own independent articles? How would the user know that "Heart-Shaped Box", "Rape Me", "Pennyroyal Tea", and "All Apologies" have articles if all 12 twelves songs showed links, when the other 8 would just redirect to In Utero?

Please click each link and tell me whether you think this is convenient or not:

1. "Serve the Servants" – 3:36
2. "Scentless Apprentice" (Cobain, Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic) – 3:48
3. "Heart-Shaped Box" – 4:41
4. "Rape Me" – 2:50
5. "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle" – 4:09
6. "Dumb" – 2:32
7. "Very Ape" – 1:56
8. "Milk It" – 3:55
9. "Pennyroyal Tea" – 3:37
10. "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" – 4:51
11. "tourette's" – 1:35
12. "All Apologies" – 3:51

OR

Please click each link and tell me whether you think this is convenient or not:

1. "Serve the Servants" – 3:36
2. "Scentless Apprentice" (Cobain, Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic) – 3:48
3. "Heart-Shaped Box" – 4:41
4. "Rape Me" – 2:50
5. "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle" – 4:09
6. "Dumb" – 2:32
7. "Very Ape" – 1:56
8. "Milk It" – 3:55
9. "Pennyroyal Tea" – 3:37
10. "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" – 4:51
11. "tourette's" – 1:35
12. "All Apologies" – 3:51

Which is more confusing and misleading? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, this is a poor example, as am I not suggesting that you link songs to their album page from that album page, and certainly not for each song in the list! Such linking would violate the Manual of Style on linking. I am referring specifically to the mention of song titles on third-party articles like 12-12-12: The Concert for Sandy Relief (a concert with performances by multiple performers of multiple songs from multiple albums) and Gimme Some Truth (album) (a collection of songs from multiple albums), two pages where you have removed existing links to albums from songs that do not have pages of their own. (Note also the allowances of MOSLINK to link to redirects or to even create red links, when deemed appropriate by the context.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that was the song you messaged me for delinking, because I delinked a song from the track-list of Appetite for Destruction because it had no article. So I assumed that that's what you meant, but my point still stands, it'd still be rather unhelpful to be redirected to an album through a song link especially since the person clicking most of the time is there to only learn about the one song and not the entire album. In some cases the album article says nothing about the song except for the fact that it's on the track-list. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a hard and fast rule; I guess for me it depends. I agree that in the In Utero album article, linking every non-notable song back to the In Utero article is not useful. In the 12-12-12 concert article, however, I can at least see some benefit in linking "My Valentine" or "Cut Me Some Slack" because unlike in the In Utero example, there's potential to question what songs these are. That actually happened to me when looking at the Bruce Springsteen segment of the 12-12-12 article. I'm not really familiar with Springsteen's recent work, so when I saw "Wrecking Ball", my first thought was that he performed the Neil Young song (from Young's 1989 Freedom album and later covered by Emmylou Harris in 1995). It was only when I cut and paste "Wrecking Ball" into the search box that I remembered that The Boss' latest album is also called Wrecking Ball, and so he was in all likelihood singing the title track at the 12-12-12 concert. It does not seem unreasonable in such instances to link such songs to their respective albums' track listing (e.g. "My Valentine").  Gong show 17:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if it linked to a specific part of the page it'd work, but if it just links to the top of the page, I don't really see it being useful. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Shape (song)

Can someone reassess Shape (song) please? Till 06:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

At quick glance (and that's really all I gave it), I think the article is clearly not a stub. I rated it a B only because rating it any higher would require a more involved procedure, as I understand it. Others are welcome to confirm my rating or nominate it higher. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Move Give It Away

A move discussion is taking place on the page Give It Away. Please give input. Oldag07 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER

Hi all, I've just come across WP:SONGCOVER, and I'm nonplussed. If covers need to meet WP:NSONGS on their own to even be mentioned, there are probably a few hundred song articles at least that need their cover sections culled. This guideline seems to contradict, or at least disregard, WP:NNC. So what gives? Is this a guideline for when a cover version should have its own section, such as Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder song)#Red Hot Chili Peppers version? That would make much more sense. --BDD (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. you're not the first to query this in this respect so a little clarification may be useful in the guideline. The first and foremost concern of the guideline is to ensure that everything about "the song" is kept together and not separated over several articles. The Higher Ground article is a perfect example of this working well. I interpret the rest as just because a song is performed on TV by an X-factor contestant or someone else, or performed live once or twice (irrespective of the notability of the artist) does not lend itself to a listing in the song of "other performances" The simple question is, does Yesterday require every recorded/performed version of the song listed, or is a sample list the ideal? --Richhoncho (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)