Talk:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time

what the what?

The top 50 songs from the list were featured and now some idiot removed them to only show the top 10! What's up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.22.253 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and then rephrase your question. --Jayron32 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why were the 50 top songs removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.112.187 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I think the title of the article "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The way the title is laid out makes it sound like a definitive list, when it's merely the opinion of a magazine. Opertinicy (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The title of the article should be "Rolling Stone's "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time", instead of its current title. Tøndemageren (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Song Genres Misleading

Why are Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" and Lennon's "Imagine" classified as Rock music? What is in the least bit rock about either of those songs? They are closer to Folk and Pop, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.109.109 (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The songs added to the updated list

There were previous copyright concerns about re-printing the entire list here, which lead to the history of the page being restarted. More can be found about the discussion here. Personally, I think we should be able to re-print the list, since Rolling Stone has made it available for free on their website, but that's beside the point.

Because of this, we can't re-print large portions of the list, and limited it to the top 10. Also, adding just a list of the songs added really adds nothing to the article because of a lack of context. The casual reader doesn't know how these added songs ranked, or which songs were replaced. Because of that, the list should be omitted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with a diff list, since it is a multiple derivative rather than a single derivative. Further, it enables the reader to find added benefit to any single 500 list he can find, without needing to find BOTH and do a comparison. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That really makes no sense. Most would be able to find little use in a list of only additions (due to the obvious reason: that they can't put the additions in any kind of context because the main list is missing). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scorpion -- although not a full diff list, the additions list DOES offer a reader additional information to supplement the single external source normally available online. A reader normally does not have access to BOTH external sources, and wouldn't even know to look for it. The additions list at least gives the reader a meaningful representation of the relative degree of magnitude between the two lists, and offers him a reason for additional digging. As for copyright, I deal with this in the real world. The Nestle-Aland 27th edition Greek text is fully copyrighted. You CANNOT publish it. However, you CAN take any other Greek text, such as Westcott and Hort, the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, or the Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament, and publish a complete diff list of that text from the Nestle-Aland with NO copyright infringement. While I understand your concern, in this matter it is not necessary.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)