Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Artists/songs without articles

Hi all, I have been working on a project to track all the artists who have had a top 40 single in the UK that have not got articles, and the songs/singles which have reached the top 40 but do not have an entry. These lists are as accurate as I could make them and I would be grateful if editors could work on creating articles for all those that are missing, currently complete as far as possible for the 2000s, 2010s and 2020s so far. Some on the list could be aliases for artists which do already have articles, where this is the case a redirect would suffice.

Please strikethrough (rather than remove) any that you do create: Artists and Songs. 03md 01:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I created one. I struck through. It got deleted?--Egghead06 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is problematic. We don't want to immediately create articles for artists or songs because they charted. We only want articles that have reliable sources that support their notability. If the most we can say about a subject is that they had (or were) a song that charted, then it's best to leave it as a redirect. One could point to the chart itself or to the artist (where a single is concerned). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It may be impossible to create articles for all of them, but I have noticed a lot of top 10 singles for big artists without articles which inspired me to pursue this - songs by massive artists like Cliff Richard, Ian Brown, Simply Red, Drake and Ed Sheeran. 03md 16:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there lists for before 1998?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm gradually working through them 03md 22:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

For all of them? Why for any of them? Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I would not start. Leave biographies on one hit wonders to AllMusic. Focus instead on encyclopaedic content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There is possibly little that can be said about a one-off dance track from this century. More chance of something more meaningful for a song or artist from the 50s or 60s?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

1952-1954 singles are now in the list 03md 22:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Chronology" for infoboxes of promotional singles

There doesn't seem to be set precedent on whether chronologies should be added to infoboxes of promotional singles. Looking at articles for Ariana Grande and Taylor Swift's promotional singles, they seem to have this. I have personally never added them to articles for Meghan Trainor's promotional singles, because the releases usually feel disconnected from each other, and don't generally constitute an era like commercial singles do. So it seems pointless. What do you guys think?--NØ 07:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Don't include, not all albums have promo singles and it becomes confusing when promo singles crossover different albums. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Don't include With all the problems associated with promo singles, we should not be compounding them with chronos. Many of those linked in NO's examples are redirects to albums, which are not useful and should not be in infoboxes. If what precedes & follows is important, they should be mentioned and referenced in the prose; otherwise there are links in the navbox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Don't include in addition to the above, promotional singles sometimes become full-fledged singles, which would render such chronology moot. In fact, I would recommend getting rid of single chronology within infoboxes as well when what gets released right after and right before a certain song doesn't tend to be relevant to that track, and such detail is better for article prose anyway even in cases where those details are relevant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also agree with SNUGGUMS second point: remove chronos and track listings. I'd support an effort to see this happen; I tried a while back (track listings, chronolgies), maybe it's time to try again. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Don’t include - my main objection is similar to what Snuggums said above - Promo singles often end up being regular singles later on in an album cycle, which I feel would lead to some confusing scenarios. I don’t support removing the regular single ones outright though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Please see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico Airplay ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Genre discussion on song

We are discussing whether or not a genre should be interpreted on the article for a Kanye West song. If anyone could jump in to discuss, that would be great. The discussion is here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat loosening the restrictions of SONGCOVER

The instructions at WP:SONGCOVER / WP:COVERSONG tell us that "a particular artist's rendition should be included... only if at least one of the following applies:

• the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song,
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

In practice, I've been allowing a few other things into articles, while holding to the spirit of a high bar to inclusion. The things I have been including:

• the rendition is used in a major film
• the rendition includes an original musician from a notable version
• the rendition is praised or criticized by an original musician from a notable version
• the rendition has a high number (a million?) of views online
• the rendition has been discussed in significant depth by multiple third-party sources.

Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of these would be sourced without ultimately resorting to a citation from a reliable source, which is what the guideline states anyway. The definition of "major" film is subjective, and the only way of sourcing its inclusion would be liner notes (not independent), Discogs or iMDb (both non-RS), or a reliable source. Any inclusion or criticism by an original musician would probably be mentioned in a reliable source, and YouTube views would involve setting an arbitrary number. So it seems we're back to "discussed by a reliable source". Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that those examples are covered under "discussed by a reliable source", but I'd welcome some elaboration to accompany the very brief statement at WP:SONGCOVER. In cases where one of the original artists – especially when they're also the writer – plays on a cover version or comments on another artist's recording, that's definitely worthy of inclusion. (And I'm relieved to see it mentioned here, having been flummoxed at times by how some editors interpret the guideline.)

I think there's a danger that editors zero in on a section discussing covers and, while quite rightly removing many items, they miss how the section works with the rest of the article. For example, the article might state early on that the songwriter always intended the song to be in a certain style or pictured it sung by a certain performer; a particular cover version might achieve this. Or we might have said that the original artist/writer performed it in concert or on TV with another notable artist; then years later, that same guest artist records a cover as a tribute to the writer. If one's focused only on a section titled Cover versions, though, it's too easy to miss the significance of these renditions. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If covered by a reliable source then the mention of the rendition is valid. If no such source exists then that cover simply doesn’t belong. If the writer plays on a cover then you might expect coverage in the press etc. There has to be some context shown as to why that cover is noteworthy otherwise the article gets littered with a long and random list of "sang it at a concert or on TV" or "released it on an album" with nothing to say why we should care.--Egghead06 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course – no one's saying otherwise. The point I'm making is that the full context might not be apparent unless one reads the entire article. And editors on WP:SONGCOVER patrol often don't do that, from what I see. Article writers, and reviewers, do, and the issue is one of relevance and location of information as much as it is WP:SONGCOVER. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like everybody is reading "discussed by a reliable source" when it really says "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song". It's not very common to find a source focusing on a song and its various versions. I have only run into such sources a half dozen times, allowing me to cite the source and list some artists who have covered the song. Which is why I proposed a loosening. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of the five instances mentioned I would have no issue with four of them being used to mention a rendition, with a reliable source. I’m uneasy about number of views online. Who decides how many and isn’t there a large element of user generation to views on a website?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The current wording is too restrictive, but a reliable source that discusses the rendition should still be required. As a practical matter, most RS about songs are artist bios, album reviews, genre/history-type reference works, etc. – usually, they are not "on the subject of the song". Whether to include appearances in major films, as well as other uses in T.V., advertising, sporting events, etc., should still be governed by WP:SONGTRIVIA. In fact, similar wording should be added to SONGCOVER: Only renditions that have gained their own critical attention, as discussed in reliable sources, should be added to song articles. This does not include renditions that are merely listed or mentioned in passing; they must be recognized as somehow noteworthy in their own right. Any rendition that includes an original musician, has a lot of online views, etc., is not in itself indicative of a rendition's importance, but needs to be confirmed by a RS. Lists of cover songs are increasingly easy to find on the internet and WP articles should be providing more encyclopedic content. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a sensible proposal. Good wording. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that as well. That's kind of what I was thinking as well, but I didn't get my point across as clearly as Ojorojo, obviously. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree the current wording is too restrictive. I think some of the suggestions proposed here are good.
  • I'm fine with the first suggestion, though I understand "major film" is subjective, but we can use editorial discussion here. I would also suggest adding covers that appear on television shows too.
  • I think this one is too much of a stretch, but maybe there could be an allowance for a cover version by an original band member.
  • The third suggestion is OK, but I believe this is already covered by the existing rules.
  • I oppose using video views, because any threshold we set would be arbitrary. Maybe we could allow coverage based on a cover's appearance on a notable sales chart, however.
  • I believe this would already be allowed by the existing rules too.

-- Calidum 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This suggestion goes against what we've been doing. We may have different ideas in mind. I'm not fine with "major film" because its use in the film may be incidental and so it may not be recognized. It should be either the film's theme song, used to market the film or is a plot point in the film, otherwise, it's trivia. The next two "notable version" points use coded Wikilawyering words. To me "notable version" means it could stand on its own but to new editors, it could mean a lot of things. It needs to be clarified. Online views is fraught with problems of its own and is likely easy to quantify but change over time. If there's a subject value for views, we should link to that. The last is the only subjective entry. We have to have a criteria that would work to keep White Christmas (song) or even all of the parodies of The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) short while not restricting entries in a song like Somebody That I Used to Know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Used to market a film" seems a very low bar. There a many songs that are chucked in a trailer without ever appearing in the film, let alone get comments from independent source. Otherwise, I agree. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet: Uses of songs in film was discussed last year, which resulted in WP:SONGTRIVIA. Are you suggesting that this not apply to cover songs? It would be inconsistent to have a different (lower) standard for covers than the originals. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Like one or two others here, the only area I'm slightly iffy about is the one concerning online views. I suppose if a reliable source deems a cover version's online views to be in some way remarkable, that should be sufficient.

I repeat, though, I think we should consider that a particular cover's significance might not necessarily be made apparent in the article's Cover versions section. For instance, Artist A might be mentioned as the song's inspiration; the original recording might have been made with an obvious and deliberate nod to Artist A's influence; reviewers might have said the song would be perfect for Artist A to cover ... Once a reader arrives at Cover versions, a simple statement that Artist A covered the song a year or two after its original release makes perfect sense. A reliable source discussing the song will comment on this as a significant cover, in my experience, but in terms of presenting information in a Wikipedia article, it's usually redundant to simply repeat the reasons why under Cover versions. JG66 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

It's been over ten days and there is no support for retaining the "on the subject of the song" limitation. Propose to remove this from the current WP:SONGCOVER and slightly re-order the presentation (old wording struck, new colored):

Cover versions/multiple renditions

Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy. Cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list. When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, 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, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

For lists of recordings by date, use an instance of {{Timeline-event}} for each entry; see WP:DATELIST.

If there are no objections, I'll add this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change, but I don't really think it changes much of our current guidance. It certainly doesn't go as far as the initial proposal did. Calidum 15:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposal too. I do question the continued use of the words 'or list' which is (or was) not in the spirit of WP guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would argue that it is too restrictive, or perhaps others' interpretation of the guideline is too restrictive. If I remember correctly, that hasn't always been the case, and it has gotten stricter over time. This is in regards to the edit conflict over including a cover of The Changeling (The Doors song) by David Gogo, which has received attention on the Allmusic page as well as this Dutch magazine, so I'd say it meets the letter of the law in any event. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic, but that appears to be exactly why the guidelines exist: to stop the inclusion of something barely mentioned in passing. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the problem. It isn't merely a list entry like a track listing. The cover itself has received attention. Why shouldn't we include a brief mention? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It hasn't received specific attention though – both are passing mentions of the song: AllMusic says "underappreciated" and the Dutch magazine just says the album "includes a cover of the Doors song", neither of them discuss the song in-depth at all. Those are exactly the sort of trivial mentions this guideline is trying to avoid. Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For example, would there be a Beatles song that wouldn't have a hundred cover versions that met that level of inclusion? Articles just become a sludge-pit of everyone wanting to mention their favourite band released this song also. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is off-topic – EDDY's point that "perhaps others' interpretation of the guideline is too restrictive" is precisely what I've been talking about. I've mentioned the situation where, when it comes to an article's Cover versions section, so much has been mentioned already about another artist's influence on the original song that all that is needed about the same artist's subsequent cover is the bald fact that they did release a recording. To give any more is redundant and straight repetition, because the significance is given in earlier sections. I've also seen situations where editors have removed mention of a song's use in feature films, citing SONGCOVER, when the source is an article about the song's use in several well-known feature films ...

And there's a difference between a) including discussion of a cover version and b) making a statement that a song has also been covered by a particular artist or many artists. To discuss another recording, we adhere to SONGCOVER. To state that some other artists have covered it – without any reference to parent albums, release dates, producers or other details – and ideally using a source that discusses the song, is simply ensuring we include a sufficiently notable point in an encyclopedic article dedicated to the song. It's as worthy of inclusion as saying, without any elaboration whatsoever, that the original recording was subsequently included on a multi-artist compilation album or was adopted as a theme song for a social or political campaign. The problem I've seen for years regarding this issue is that some editors who eagerly police SONGCOVER appear to have no idea about writing articles and giving thorough coverage to the subject (the latter being a requirement of GA, certainly FA). Either that or they're zeroing in on SONGCOVER and being way too blinkered.

As it happens, I agree that coverage of the Dave Gogo cover appears to be insufficient for inclusion in the Doors song article. But I still think, since the discussion here is about loosening the restrictions of SONGCOVER, the overall issue is as much about some editors' overly rigid interpretation of the guideline as it's stood for years. The wording at SONGCOVER should stipulate that the guideline concerns what I've called scenario a) – discussion of a particular cover version. Personally, I've never read it as meaning anything else, anyway. JG66 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Cover songs are sometimes mentioned in album reviews (especially when there are many or the album is mostly covers), artist bios, etc. However, these often just receive passing mentions and may be less than a full sentence. Just because there is a source that, for example, the Beatles performed a "rousing" version of an Everly Brothers song in Hamburg, doesn't justify adding it the song article. This is hardly better than using a track listing as a source.

Perhaps this point can be clarified similar to WP:SONGTRIVIA: "The use of a song is only worthy of noting in its respective article when it: ... is not merely listed or mentioned in passing; e.g. a movie review in a quality source simply lists the songs in the movie, without discussing the importance or merits of the songs' use".

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me in the examples you give, you're trying to draw a line that's not there. You say a band performing a "rousing" cover of a song is no more worthy than its basic inclusion in a track listing – well, that's rubbish, the first example's a qualitative judgment, the second's a bare, unadorned fact. And it doesn't carry through to the SONGTRIVIA wording. There, "merely listed or mentioned in passing" is elaborated on with the phrase "without discussing the importance or merits of the songs' use". "Rousing" is pretty weak and unremarkable, yes, but it's still a comment on the merits of the cover version. It's not as if SONGTRIVIA reads "without engaging in extended discussion about the importance or merits of the songs' use". JG66 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of editors desperately trying to put unremarkable covers in articles about songs, they could create something like this where any cover, referenced or not can get a mention?!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that aimed at me, Digghead? I'm not talking about including any unremarkable cover versions, I'm saying that the two threads don't match, and that any judgment of a cover's merits is worthy of inclusion under SONGCOVER. And the overall point I've been trying to make all along here is that anything related to cover versions has to be viewed within the context of the whole song article also. I don't expect an unimaginative editor fixated only on WP:SONGCOVER to even entertain that possibility, but with an article-wide perspective, it's often the case that the covers with only weak, innocuous commentary end up getting ditched anyway, just as any borderline detail gets culled. Point is, it's not only about SONGCOVER. JG66 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but who are you? I am not being rude or personal here, just offering another possible destination so editors can list their favourite cover in a list of covers thereby not polluting the article on the song for the rest of us. Just imagine how many entries there would be for List of Yesterday (Beatles song) cover versions.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Who am I? I'm the editor you apparently replied to with the message "Instead of editors desperately trying to put unremarkable covers ...?!!!" JG66 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn’t read it. I was merely indenting to add my point. I’ve read it now and I’m not sure what changes to SONGCOVER you would like to see. Do you have new proposed wording?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the indentation did suggest you were responding to my comment and not the previous/full-out one. I apologise for my rudeness. JG66 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you just call another editor a dickhead because they didn't agree with you?Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Er ... no. I think it's quite clear what I was responding to. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I did wonder what a Digghead was.😱--Egghead06 (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Songs by key categories

Only the other day I discovered Category:Songs by key.

The subcategory pages contain this text:

All songs with lyrics, composed in or popularly sung in the key of [key].

There are a few issues with this:

• Clearly it's nowhere near all songs in each key at the moment. Of course, the categories may be still in an early stage of development, but it would be wishful thinking to be able to list every song ever composed.
• How is "popularly sung" defined? Furthermore, this descriptive text is at odds with the category names (Songs composed in [key]). Are we meant to list only songs that were originally composed in the given key, or generally songs that are "popularly sung" in the given key, whatever that means?

Furthermore, what about songs that don't fit neatly into one of the key categories? I think we need to decide how we should fit these into the system. Cases to consider:

Songs in a mixture of keys

There are many common ways in which songs change or mix keys. Do we have a category specifically for songs in multiple keys, or do we list each such song in the corresponding category for each key it is partially in? Furthermore, do we need to consider separating out the different ways in which songs can mix keys?

Songs that are ambiguous as to what key they're in

I have observed that with some songs it's confusing to try to work out the key, even if I can figure out all the notes. With some, there's a clear key signature but it's hard to single out the major tonic, the minor tonic or any other as being the tonal centre. With others, there may be so many accidentals it's hard to identify a key. I suppose it's difficult to accommodate such songs unless we can find a source giving a musical analysis confirming a song as being in a particular key.

Songs not in a major or minor key

Many songs use Gregorian modes. These include traditional folk songs and modern pop. I suppose a category for each of these would work (Category:Songs in the Dorian mode, Category:Songs in the Mixolydian mode, etc.), and we can create these categories as we begin to populate them. Trouble is there seems to be dispute about whether these mode names should be capitalised. I can imagine that post-tonal systems have been used for vocal music as well, though I don't know of any examples.

And I notice that right now there's Category:Songs composed in D-flat minor but no Category:Songs composed in C-sharp minor or Category:Songs composed in D-sharp minor, and moreover no other categories for keys with more than six sharps or flats.

Another issue is that some of the songs listed in these categories don't mention the key in the article text, and as such the claim of key is unsourced. I think that, if a song is to be included in one of these categories, it needs to have the key stated in the article text, with reliable sources (and not, for instance, blindly copying the key labelling from Musicnotes or the like). — Smjg (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I may come back to this, but in the meantime, here is an earlier failed nomination regarding compositions by key. If I see any unreferenced cats, I remove under WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF, this has included Songs by key cats. I do agree, in the absolute minimum, that the scheme needs alot more thought to be of any value to anybody. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely recall seeing some more-recent discussion. It does require WP:CATV at a minimum. (I think I could be persuaded there are almost no songs which can be included in a category and be defined by that category. Maybe some classical pieces [but of course those more-often switch keys].) --Izno (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Why The Music Network shouldn't be used for release dates

There's been some debate about The Music Network and whether its a reliable source for release dates in Australia. There are lots of examples where it has/hasn't been used to source release dates. I've noticed the following discrepancy: in issue 1296, it says "Slow Grenade" by Ellie Goulding was released to radio and then two weeks later it also says "Slow Grenade" in the singles to radio list in 1298. Its unlikely that a label would service songs twice in the same month. Given that rankings are next to the songs, is it not more likely that these is actually a ranking of songs added to australian radio? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)