Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

I'd like to revisit a discussion re: categorizing all songs by an artist as any specific genre. I say we should not group all songs by an artist by genre, especially when song articles require sourcing specifically describing the song's genre(s). To group all songs by an artist as a specific genre is inaccurate and unfair.

For example, just today, User:MagicatthemovieS removed Category:Synthpop songs from "Sexxx Dreams" because Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:American synthpop songs. MagicatthemovieS did nothing wrong here in terms of how categories are intended to be used, but are we seriously suggesting all songs by Lady Gaga are synthpop? Many, many Lady Gaga songs would never be considered synthpop, or even pop in general. How is this helpful or accurate?

To recap, I started this discussion back in April 2017. The discussion generated some helpful feedback, and User:koavf strongly opposed changes to the current format, but overall I believe editors were supportive of not grouping all songs by an artist by genre. I try not to put words in folks' mouths, but here is a summary:

• Editors not concerned about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:koavf
• Editors expressing concern about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:Walter Görlitz, User:Michig, User:Ojorojo, User:Explicit
• I'm not entirely sure where User:Synthwave.94 falls on the issue; they commented on a specific change to the Led Zeppelin songs category, but (IMO) did not weigh in on the larger discussion (correct me if I'm wrong)

I've linked to editors' names so they will be notified of this discussion. Please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions.

I revisited this discussion in May 2018, which also generated some good discussion.

• Editors not concerned about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:koavf, User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, User:Richhoncho
• Editors expressing concern about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:SNUGGUMS, User:Kokoro20, User:Bondegezou
• User:Explicit also participated in this discussion, and I think User:postdlf was in favor of not changing the current structure

Again, please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions, or feel free to clarify your thoughts here. I also submitted an RfC, hoping to get additional feedback from editors who may not watchlist WikiProject Songs. Only User:Doniago weighed in, and said they were not in favor of "pigeonholing artists into genres, with the possible exception of situations in which all of their notable works really do belong to a single genre".

Do any other editors care to weigh in here? There seem to be a few editors who are opposed to changing the current category structure, but more editors in favor of ending the practice of labeling all songs by an artist as a specific genre. I will ask again, Should we continue categorizing all songs by an artist by genre?, and are there ways to get this discussion seen by a larger audience than just WikiProject Songs? Clearly, my attempt at RfC was not successful last time.

I'm hoping we can hear from other people and not just rehash the same arguments by the same people, as the previous discussions already show their opinions. I also welcome previous participants to share if their thoughts have changed at all. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"are we seriously suggesting all songs by Lady Gaga are synthpop?" No. Just like how Category:Metallica albums is under Category:Thrash metal albums but they do have one symphonic metal album, it's okay to characterize a category as being thrash even if a single article is symphonic. The precision of categories really needs to apply to articles more than categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, you have appropriately summarised my views as stated previously. There's too much categorising for the sake of categorising here, a desire to create a neat ontology where none exists. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: But we are essentially calling all Lady Gaga songs synthpop by removing Category:Synthpop songs and keeping Category:Lady Gaga songs. (For the record, the edit made to "Sexxx Dreams" was reverted, and Category:Synthpop songs was replaced with Category:American synthpop songs, but I think this still makes a good example.) You've made your strong opposition known. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I think anyone knows the difference. Is there a policy or guideline that supports your claim? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What claim, exactly? What am I proving? If we can only add genres to song article infoboxes with appropriate sourcing to confirm, why are we not treating categories similarly? We should only be including articles in song genres when the article's prose specifically mentions genres, not just throwing them into an artist category and hoping the genre applies. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"What claim, exactly?" About all articles in a child category inheriting some property from a parent. "If we can only add genres to song article infoboxes with appropriate sourcing to confirm, why are we not treating categories similarly?" Because articles are different than categories, as I just said above. This is exactly my point: if Metallica releases one smooth jazz single and the rest of their songs are thrash metal, it's okay to have the category be included in thrash metal and save that one smooth jazz song for being categorized differently. Don't upmerge dozens of songs out of that category and leave the main artist category without a genre because of one weird outlier. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's where we disagree. In my opinion, the outliers are problematic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: WP:SUBCAT supports this. ℯxplicit 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: I think far too much time is wasted arguing about this, considering I feel like the vast majority of Wikipedia readers don’t even know categories exist, let alone use them. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? So that's a reason to keep a terribly inaccurate category structure? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to politely clarify for you that he doesn't care. Nor do I. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Two "don't care" votes. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• My stance remains the same as before; don't replace genre categories with musician categories, especially for those who work in multiple genres. It's oversimplified and often misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto on SNUGGUMS' stance for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @SNUGGUMS and Walter Görlitz: Thanks for confirming. If either of you can think of ways to get more editor feedback, or make a more formal proposal, please share. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've posted a message at village pump seeking additional editor input. I've tried to be neutral in my overview of this discussion so far, and I'm hoping some editors outside WP:Songs will contribute. I'm pleased to see so many comments here so quickly, but so far we've heard many of the same voices. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Since no one else has commented in more than a week, I've posted a similar note at the administrators' noticeboard. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• As an example from the album's side, I'll offer up this: I would not categorize Category:Steve Martin albums as both "Comedy albums" and "Bluegrass albums" as it contains 8 albums and perhaps 1 is both bluegrass and comedic (categorize the individual albums as appropriate); on the other hand, I would not remove the "Pop rock albums" categorization from Category:Billy Joel albums just because 1 of his albums is a classical album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you'd want readers to assume all Billy Joel albums are pop rock, but regardless, this sort of subjectivity demonstrates my point. We as editors should not be deciding genres; genre categories should be added based on secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • You're missing my point. Let's be more general and call all Billy Joel albums "rock albums" except for the one classical album. Should the rock albums category thus be removed from the Billy Joel albums category because one is classical. If your answer is yes, then we should scrub all genre categorization because I don't want to go through such categories scrolling through hundreds or even thousands of articles within the categories without some sort of beneficial diffusion. If it's going to be one way or the other, I'd rather have artist diffusion over no diffusion simply because a few albums by the artist are "out of scope". Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I'm not missing your point. I fully understand your point, but I disagree. We should only categorize Billy Joel's rock albums as such if they've actually been described as rock music in secondary coverage. Otherwise, we're incorrectly telling readers all Billy Joel albums are rock albums, when this is clearly not the case. If we're specifically using Billy Joel as an example, Category:Billy Joel albums suggests all his albums are pop rock and/or soft rock. I'll go ahead and assume secondary coverage does not describe all his albums as pop rock and/or soft rock. Yes, we should scrub genre categorization for artist categories/subcategories because all their recordings (albums or songs) may not be the same genre. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Why don't we just change the scheme from Category:Rock albums by German artists to Category:Albums by German rock artists (or Category:Albums by German rock musicians to follow the scheme of Category:German rock musicians). Then individual album articles can be placed in their appropriate genre category, and I can still find albums by acts properly diffused with these "albums by musician by genre" categories. These general genres would be based on the infobox in the article for the person or group; for example, Lady Gaga shows pop, dance, and electronic, so the parents of Category:Lady Gaga albums would be Category:Albums by American pop musicians, Category:Albums by American dance musicians, and Category:Albums by American electronic musicians. If the infobox changes, so can the categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
          • These categories still imply artists belongs to specific genres. We should find another way to subcategorize works. If Category:American pop songs is too large, for example, let's create Category:1990s American pop songs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
            • The assumption is that the genres listed in the article is based on reliably sourced information. If it is not sourced, it should be removed. If it's removed then it would not qualify to be in the genre category as I suggested. But it sounds like you are for removing the genre parameter from the artist infobox entirely. I would be in favor of removing all genre categorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

              Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I'm not opposed to removing the genre parameter from artist biographies, album articles, or song articles, as long as sourcing verifies such claims. I am against editors categorizing all works by an artist by genre. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

              Which my suggestion above would resolve: if there is sourcing that says Aerosmith is a hard rock band in the article, then it can be listed in the infobox. If it's listed in the infobox, then an appropriate categorization for their albums can be Category:Albums by American hard rock artists, because it's based on sourced info and doesn't imply that every Aerosmith album is hard rock. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

              Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Eh, that's still not my preference, but I appreciate you've tried to come up with another way to address this problem. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be categorized album categories by the existing genre categories for the same reason we don't categorize categories like Category:Lady Gaga under Category:1986 births, Category:Synthpop singers, and so on. If Category:Lady Gaga albums can be categorized under Category:Electropop albums, which is then removed from The Fame, it is interesting to see no push to categorize the Gaga albums category under Category:Interscope Records albums and remove it all of Gaga's album pages. Alternatively, we can simply allow both Category:Lady Gaga albums and The Fame to be categorized under Category:Electropop albums. We allow this for countries (France and Category:France are both under Category:Western European countries). ℯxplicit 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Genius.com. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Chart-genre discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ALBUMS which would also impact this Wikiproject. Please feel free to join us there to discuss whether a song or album charting in a specific genre chart qualifies that genre to be listed in the infobox. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Are B-sides considered singles?

For purposes of the {{infobox_song}} template (which designates singles and songs as different colors), are B-sides considered singles? I'm also wondering if a B-side to a single should have the previous/next singles chronology in the infobox that shows which singles were released immediately before/after. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I'm just wondering how often a B-side would merit its own article... perhaps the Beatles' singles and some others back in the 1960s, but surely not many since then. Do you have an example? Richard3120 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Richard3120: Yes - "Gotta Get Up" by Harry Nilsson. It was released as a B-side in 1971 but found wide fame this year when used in a Netflix series. The article on A-sides and B-sides also include some famous examples of B-sides that became more famous because DJs liked them better (such as "Rock Around the Clock"), but I'm not sure if they were re-released as official singles because of their popularity. Thanks for your time. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought it would be from that era – I can't see many B-sides becoming notable after the late 70s. I'd say yes, you should probably include the singles chronology in the {{Infobox song}} template. As I expected, most Beatles B-sides have their own articles, in some cases even GA status (see "Rain" and "Revolution", for example), and they include the chronology. In my opinion it helps to provide some context and timeline for the song. Richard3120 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Youth (Shawn Mendes song)

​​​​Multiple IPs have changed the classification for Youth (Shawn Mendes song) from single to promotional single. Are there sources that confirm that the song was or wasn't a single? ET Canada's article contains the word "single", this iHeart station's article indicates that it probably was released as a single while also avoiding usage of the word "single", a music video was released, and the song charted in about 23 countries. I don't know if the song was released to radio. Jc86035 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It was sourced from the very beginning. Songs do not have to be released to radio in order to become singles. Hayman30 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Attn please

Three different versions of Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini have gone number 1 (2 in 1960 and 1 in 1990). The version listed at List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1990s is not even shown in peak position box for various countries and the one listed at List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1960 is shown in two different peak position boxes. It is unclear to me why some countries are in one peak position box and others are shown in a different one down below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I guess nobody has bothered to create a separate section for the UK Bombalurina version in 1990 – this was a one-off novelty hit that was basically one person, children's TV presenter Timmy Mallett, and as a result they never had another hit, which is why they don't have their own article. But the single charted in at least ten different countries, so it deserves its own section in the song article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

One-off novelty hit that reached number one on the UK Singles Chart. Novelty seems to be a misplaced adjective here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

And as for the two 1960 versions, aren't the chart tables simply showing in which countries Brian Hyland's English version charted, and then the countries in which Johnny Halliday's French-speaking version charted? Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a "Chart history" section and a separate (Oh wait there are four versions of this song that have gone #1). At first, I was thinking the Hallyday version and the Hyland version were one version. I can't imagine a song charted at number 1 in one country and never charted in any other countries. Someone who knows how to research chart history accomplishments really needs to do some work on this article. How many songs are there that have 4 different versions that have charted number 1 in various countries? I have to think there are other versions that have charted that should have some chart history discussion. When I created "Here We Go Again" and brought it to WP:FA, it took me a ton of digging to figure out that there were lesser known versions that charted. It can't be the case that all four times this song charted it reached number 1. There must be other charted versions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hey guys, help me understand this italian charts list. Did all these songs chart in Italy? I.e., did Jimi Hendrix and Connie Francis really chart this song in Italy?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: no, this list is showing all the recorded versions of the song that the database knows about – if any of these versions had been released as singles and charted, then this would be shown in the last three columns (Entry/Peak/Weeks), but you can see that they are all empty, so this song has never charted in Italy. I know it seems hard to believe that Hendrix could possibly have recorded this song, but he has – it's a live version on the Germany-only album release Mr. Pitiful [1].

As for your query above, I'm going to try and tidy up the song's article now, but I don't see why it's impossible to believe that four different versions of the song could have made number one in different countries ("Unchained Melody" has been number one four times by four different artists in the UK alone). It was quite common in the pre-Beatles era for various countries to remake a popular song with new lyrics in the home country's language. The US has done this as well, of course – "My Way" was originally a French song before Paul Anka wrote English lyrics for it and Frank Sinatra made it famous worldwide. And two of Elvis Presley's biggest singles, "It's Now or Never" and "Wooden Heart", were Italian and German folk songs, respectively, before new English lyrics were put to them. A well-known case of a song that was a hit in the US and UK for different artists was "Moon River"... in the US it's become Andy Williams' theme song, but although Andy is well-known in the UK this is not one of his best known tracks there, by any means – in the UK the number-one version was by black South African Danny Williams, and this is the version everyone knows and hears on oldies radio stations in Britain. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard, O.K. so in terms of charting, the song seems to have charted in the Netherlands several times according to this database: JAN UND KJELD, ELIZE,ALBERT WEST & BRIAN HYLAND, BAND ZONDER BANAAN & ALBERT WEST, LINE RENAUD, and RICHARD ANTHONY. These versions must have charted in other countries other than the Netherlands, no? Also, the article should mention the numerous "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Honolulu Strand Bikini" versions, I think. Can you source this? Surely, we should mention the Hendrix version in the article, right and the version from Connie Francis and The Kids Next Door?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, yes, the other Dutch charting versions should be included... perhaps this section should be retitled "Dutch versions". There's no reason to think that they would have charted in other countries, except maybe Belgian Flanders, and clearly they didn't – as I have mentioned above, before the internet era made songs ubiquitous across the world, it was quite normal for each country to have their own very individual identity regarding popular musicians and charts, particularly with their different languages, which don't travel well even across the small countries of Europe (the Jan & Kjeld version was sung in Dutch, so nobody would have understood it apart from the Netherlands and Flanders).

Per WP:SONGCOVER, the various cover versions should only be mentioned if there are independent sources that actual talk about them in detail, not just discography listings or YouTube links. Therefore the majority of the versions mentioned in the "Other cover versions and parodies" section should be deleted, and the Hendrix and Connie Francis versions not mentioned unless we can find sources for them. That probably goes for the "Honolulu Strand Bikini" versions as well, unless they charted in their respective countries and/or can be sourced properly. Richard3120 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: the Line Renaud version only made the Belgian Bubbling Under charts, and the Elize song is an entirely different song. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120 OK so we are left with the following unsourced facts:

1. Line Renaud version only made the Belgian Bubbling Under charts
2. the Jan & Kjeld version JAN UND KJELD was sung in Dutch
3. Hendrix JIMI HENDRIX version was on the Germany-only album release Mr. Pitiful [2]
4. Connie Francis CONNIE FRANCIS version was on Connie Francis and The Kids Next Door.
5. "Honolulu Strand Bikini" version only charted by Jan & Kjeld and Club Honolulu to our knowledge with no other reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120 Well the Club Honolulu "Honolulu Strand Bikini" version went to # 1 in Germany. There must be some sourcing for this--19:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger Actually I've just added the Jan & Kjeld version – it was sung in German, not Dutch. So maybe it's best to add the Club Honolulu version to that section and call them the "German versions"... Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120, We need to mention the phrase "Honolulu Strand Bikini" somewhere if you can source the Club Honolulu version. If you could also add it to the WP:LEAD and clean that up with your greater understanding of the content that would be great. Thanks for your hard work on my curiosity with this song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem – I'll have to go to work soon, but I'll try and tidy this article up in the next day or two. Richard3120 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Great. thanks again for your help. P.S. I have not only learned some music history, but with the image results of some googling, I have learned some fashion: that a strand bikini seems to be a more explicit string bikini in which the string is more liberally located.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it – I think if my girlfriend found out I'd been Googling pictures of bikinis, I'd have some explaining to do... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is just educational googling for wikipedia. Hey are any of the following adequate sources to include the Hendrix version a book, a review, discogs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no – the book again is just a track listing, nothing to indicate that Hendrix's version was notable (compare with his rendition of the "Star-Spangled Banner", which has been endlessly discussed in the last 50 years). Discogs and Rate Your Music are user-generated content and forums – anyone can edit them, and there's no editorial control, so they are not considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes (same goes for iMDb regarding movies). What we're really looking for is a journalist actually discussing and critiquing Hendrix's version – unlikely as it's barely a minute long and obviously intended as throwaway filler on the album. Richard3120 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think your girlfriend has gotten up in my search engine. Upon attempting to continue my wikipedia research by resuming my strand bikini search, I am only able to find regular bikinis now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Richard3120, I see your recent changes. I am tempted to just step in myself, but you are much more the expert so I will comment here.
  1. Bolded alternate titles are properly mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Elsewhere, they are unbolded. I think they should be boldly mentioned in the LEAD.
  2. Also, I think the Lead should summarize charted versions, given the dozens of versions that we are aware of.
  3. Also, although we don't have sources for the Connie Francis version on Connie Francis and The Kids Next Door, I believe that if a song is made by an artist or group that has a well-sourced article and is on an album that has a well-sourced article, we should mention that in a song article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added changes for nos. 1 and 3 – I don't think it's necessary to list every charting version in the lead, as many of these were in one country only. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of number-one singles of 1960 (Canada) has sources. However, these two articles contradict each other: List of number-one singles in Australia during the 1960s and List of Top 25 singles for 1960 in Australia in the absence of sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the contradiction is, Tony? One is a list of the number-one singles each week, and the other is the year-end chart. Both of these were calculated in retrospect from archive data, as Australia had no national chart until late 1966. Richard3120 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

O.K. so it never actually charted in in Australia and I was misunderstanding the pages. What about the Canada version? Those sources look real. Can we add that?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it peaked at number two in Australia... if you believe that a chart created more than thirty years later can be considered official. But I don't think David Kent's retrospective charts are considered the authoritative word on the matter.

The problem is that back in 1960, the US and Norway were the only countries with an official music chart (other countries had music charts, such as Belgium and Italy, but the sample size and methodology of these charts is considered dubious - we've already seen that Belgium and the Netherlands only had a monthly chart, and created it by combining all competing versions of the same song). Canada's CHUM Chart (which I have added to this article), West Germany's Die Musik Markt chart and the UK's Record Retailer charts have become the official charts of those countries at the time, but only in retrospect – Record Retailer's chart was one of four competing charts during the 1960s in the UK, for example, and didn't become the official retrospective chart of the era until the late 1970s. Australia's de facto music chart, the Kent Report, began in 1974, the official New Zealand and Sweden charts in 1975, the German charts in 1978... charts before the mid-70s in any country other than the US, Canada, Norway and UK have to be treated carefully. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you think List of number-one hits (Germany), List of 2011–12 figure skating season music, A Good Year or Record World, which all mention the song, be included in the song's article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added the information about A Good Year and the German number ones to the article. I'm not sure how "official" Record World's charts are considered for inclusion in an article. And I would think almost every popular song in history has been used as the music for a figure skating routine, so this is insignificant and trivial information to be included. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not advocating for Record World, but it seems that at one time there were three music mags with charts: RW, Cashbox and Billboard. I am not saying that RW is on par with the others, but the article suggests that they once had a similar place in the industry to the other two that I mention. Billboard seems to have emerged as the one that lasted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Now that we have pretty much fleshed out the content that is to be in the main body, the question is what should the WP:LEAD summarize. I think it should mention all versions that we are aware have reached number one if we don't want to mention all versions that have charted. I am thus not sure why the Italian name is in the LEAD and the Spanish names (Bikini Amarillo or Bikini A Lunares Amarillo) are not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Richard3120, Thanks for your charting expertise. I just need your opinion on the inclusion of the Italian version in the WP:LEAD. It is not clear to me that it is any more appropriate than adding other non-charting versions. Also, I have unbolded a lot of main body content that is not suppose to be bolded. Finally, I had pinged you in hopes that you would take a look at some charting info regarding my only WP:SONG FA at "Here We Go Again".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Songs by backing vocalists

What does the project think about categorizing songs by artist for acts who contributed significant backing vocals, whether credited or not but not as a "featuring" artist? There are a number of examples, but JGabbard is very insistent that articles for the songs Magnet and Steel and Gold (John Stewart song) be categorized as Stevie Nicks songs and the songs Whatever Gets You thru the Night and Bad Blood (Neil Sedaka song) as Elton John songs because of those artists respective contributions. This practice could be applied to many other songs then, but where should the delineation be if done this way? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think the artist has to be credited by name on the record, i.e. "with Elton John" or "featuring Elton John". Otherwise, by this logic "All of the Lights" is an Elton John song... just as "You're So Vain" is a Mick Jagger song, and "Young Americans" is a Luther Vandross song. And what do you do about songs like "We Are the World" and "Do They Know It's Christmas?"... categorise them by every one of the dozens of artists featured on the records? Richard3120 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Imagine RFC

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

---

There’s an ongoing discussion to see whether “Imagine” should be listed as the second single from Ariana Grande's thank u, next at [3]. Looking for some unbiased people to comment there, because as you can imagine it has only currently been responded to by biased Grande fans.—NØ 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan, that's not a fair characterisation. You don't know I or Aoba47 are Grande fans at all. Yes, Fan4Life is, as they have made it clear that's who their username is referring to, but that's not a fair, relevant or accurate thing to about the two others who have commented. I only commented there because Aoba47 told me about it via email; I wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise. It doesn't make me a "biased Grande fan" if I have been alerted to something. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but please speak neutrally and don't make assumptions when requesting comment from uninvolved editors. This is not a neutral way to describe others who have commented, and it's an assumption to characterise us and dismiss our opinions because nobody else has supported your opinion thus far. I also don't know why Grande fans would not want "Imagine" to not be a full single? I know some fans of artists out there consider anything released from an album a single. (This page is also on my watchlist, so before you suggest it, I am not following you.) Ss112 06:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

::Just for clarity, my statement was not directed at anybody in specific. Stop trying to derail and make another discussion about yourself. What I was trying to convey is that the RfC hasn’t been looked at by completely uninvolved editors yet. You started the “Imagine” article and were one of the first people to list it as a promo single so clearly you’re not uninvolved.—NØ 13:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This was a poorly done WijiProject notification. You didn’t keep it neutral at all. Your complaints of bias clearly indicate that you’re encouraging people to weigh in on a particular side of the dispute. This won’t end well. I strongly recommend archiving and starting over again, without complaining about bias or fans. (This is coming from someone who is neutral and not a fan of the music in question. Not a defensive fan or anything.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I recommend being more neutral in how you invite other editors to review ongoing discussions. You may have meant well, but you should not make assumptions about other editors' motivations and interests. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: I agree with Ss112 that the "as you can imagine it has only currently been responded to by biased Grande fans" part was completely unnecessary. I also disagree with this part "my statement was not directed at anybody in specific" as the statement is clearly about the editors that have already commented (and disagree with your opinion that "Imagine" should be classified as a second single). You have used a similar excuse about Ariana Grande stans/fans in the past for an AfD and I would strongly discourage you from doing so again in the future. Assume good faith for those that participate in the RfC. Also for your comment "What I was trying to convey is that the RfC hasn’t been looked at by completely uninvolved editors yet", I have participated in the RfC and none of my major projects (GA or FA) involve Grande so that is simply not true. If you want to leave a post that draws attention to an RfC, then do just that without putting anyone down. Aoba47 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

More demonstrably incorrect assumptions about me...I literally had nothing to do with the creation of the "Imagine" article. That was Another Believer. I also had nothing to do with listing "Imagine" as a promo single at her discography; I don't know who did that but it was there already when it first saw it. It's right there in the page history of both articles...so I am uninvolved thanks very much. I don't care enough about this RfC to derail it, but if not liking having my motivations assumed and essentially having my opinion dismissed makes me a "derailer", then so be it. Anyone else who saw them being referred to would respond the same. Ss112 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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