Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Disambiguation page for "Inhaler" song vs artist

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)

Unwell genre add

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)

Seen It All (song) - Help needed with disambiguation page

When you type "seen it all" in the search field, you get redirected to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seen_It_All , ("See You on the Other Side") when in fact there is another page, it should show first imho: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seen_It_All_%28song%29

I tried to fix the redirect, but it was instantly fixed by a bot, so obviously I don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages. Help would be appreciated.

Greetings, MagicGH (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

i don't know much about ClueBot's vandalism criteria, but i'm guessing you got reverted for being a new editor and for lacking an edit summary. i have no idea why "Seen It All" redirects to See You on the Other Side. however, the Seen It All (song) article should, in fact, be moved to Seen It All, perhaps with a hatnote directing users to the "See You on the Other Side" disambig. someone else will have to carry out the move, though, as it requires deleting the current page at Seen It All. thanks for the note ~ Boomur [☎] 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

note: i just looked into it a bit more, and "Seen It All" is also a song on korn's See You on the Other Side, aka See You on the Other Side (Korn album). korn's "seen it all" was deemed too non-notable for an article and redirected to See You on the Other Side, although now it should probably redirect to the page for the korn album or the bugg song should be moved to that space — and the latter is our best bet, methinks. again, a hatnote can be used for those in search of korn. ~ Boomur [☎] 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I requested the deletion of the current redirect to make room for moving Seen It All (song). We'll be able to add the hatnote for song by Korn after the move. Mayast (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Some assessment required

Can this article be reviewed for quality? Thanks. Soham 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment for B-class

I'd like to ask for assessment of "Atlas" (Coldplay song) for B-class. Mayast (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite there yet. There needs to be a discussion of chart performance; tables are a supplement, not a replacement for prose. The lead should be expanded to cover all sections and include no new material. (MOS:LEAD). Adabow (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll keep working on that :) Mayast (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a "Commercial performance" section, and tried to cover other sections in the lead. This is the very first article that I'm trying to get to B-class, and I'm not sure what else should be included there. Could you please take another look? Mayast (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rocket Man (I Think It's Going to Be a Long, Long Time)

The requested move has been active for over a month. Care to comment there? --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Music Blvd lyrics Links

I want the approval to add music blvd lyrics links in the external links section of different songs page because already existing lyrics link is of metrolyrics which is not accessible (banned) in Pakistan. This way users from Pakistan can get access to an alternate lyrics website from different wikipedia songs pages. Thanks. Sibtain 007 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sibtain 007: - As I posted on your talk page, your additions such as this edit include a link to MusicBlvd. It appears that Wikipedia's article on MusicBlvd is about an unrelated defunct company. Going from http://musicblvd.com and clicking "CONTACT" takes you to http://actionfactory.com/contact/ which shows they call the website "Music Blvd" (although that's not obvious from their logo). If there's consensus to add these links, I suggest you use "Music Blvd" (with a space and no wikilink) instead of "MusicBlvd". Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes I understand that MusicBlvd is an unrelated defunct company. That was a mistake and I ensure you that I will use a space and won't make it a wikilink. thanks.

Sibtain 007 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert here, but if I recall correctly, MetroLyrics is preferred over other lyrics databases because of copyright law/licensing. Basically, it pays royalties to songwriters, and I'm not sure if Music Blvd pays them as well. However, I can't find a link which would state that MetroLyrics is the only website that can be used on Wikipedia; here's the only thing I could find: Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos. — Mayast (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are also mentioned some other sites: MTV.com, CMT.com, and Yahoo Music. Mayast (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I was not meant to overwrite the already existing metrolyrics link i just meant to add an alternative lyrics link. I found the most convenient one Music blvd lyrics.Sibtain 007 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I do not trust the MusicBlvd website and oppose linking to it. Unlike the MetroLyrics website, I find that none of the pages at MusicBlvd are marked as copyrighted and there is no indication that the website is fully licensed or copyright compliant. The website only issues a generalized statement for complaints about copyright infringement, instead of a more extensive copyright statement like at CBSi (MetroLyrics parent company). In addition, Music Blvd seems to misrepresent itself, falsely claiming here that it is the original Music Boulevard website from 1995. IMO it is best not to link to the website unless these discrepancies are adequately resolved. As Mayast points out, there are plenty of properly licensed websites which can be used for lyrics. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:COPYLINK. Most 3rd party sites quoting lyrics do NOT have permission. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

MusicBlvd is a fully licensed lyrics site by using the MusixMatch API. They have an enterprise license that can be found here -- developer.musixmatch.com. MusixMatch gives digital assets to the publisher (MusicBlvd) to publish on their website to give them credit. There are MusixMatch logos on everypage of MusicBlvd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystanburke (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's three accounts and one IP so far that have added links to musicblvd.com in the last week. This is spam. I've reverted the remaining links, opened a SPI and filed a WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

MusicBlvd is a fully licensed lyrics site by using the MusixMatch API. They have an enterprise license that can be found here -- developer.musixmatch.com. MusixMatch gives digital assets to the publisher (MusicBlvd) to publish on their website to give them credit. There are MusixMatch logos on everypage of MusicBlvd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystanburke (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.77.98 (talk)

Here is MusicBlvd's response and documentation proving these claim by some the editors here are false. Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers. Trystanburke (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting post, which makes me wonder:

1. Does it appear to anyone else that the email from Natalie to Gianluca is dated "Fri Dec 20, 2013" (which would be after the claims above, and would be a good reason to attempt to strike it out)?
2. Where is this "list of licensed services", and when was it updated to include Musicblvd.com? Is it on http://www.nmpa.org? (Note: It's good to see that MusicBlvd.com is NOT listed on NMPA's list of Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013)
3. Since the post states "editors from one of our favorite online resources do a poor job in due diligence", what would have been reasonable due diligence?

GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback GoingBatty.

1. The email's date is irrelevant as you can clearly see the MusixMatch API usage far prior to that date. This letter seems to be requested by MusicBlvd specifically for the editors of Wikipedia to confirm the relationship between MusixMatch and the NMPA's. In the end, it looks like they are legally licensed.
2. There is no public list for the licensed services, but it looks like you can confirm by requesting with nmadaj@nmpa.org and Gianluca@musixmatch.com
3. Reasonable due diligence is understanding who the lyrics licensing services are which are MusixMatch and LyricFind and having their logo on each page. MusixMatch clearly states:

"Credit: Please give us due credit when using the musiXmatch API. Display a musiXmatch logo available on the logos page along with a link to http://www.musixmatch.com/resources when displaying lyrics provided by the API."

Also, a DMCA policy is also required. It looks MetroLyrics has no licensing service provider on any of their pages and it not compliant per the terms of either lyrics provider.

It is good practice for Wikipedia editors to research copyright and licensing compliance rather than taking the side of a large company like [CBS]. Reaching out to contact the website owner, NMPA and licensed lyrics companies are a good place to start as well before jumping to false conclusions.

I would like to motion to add MusicBlvd.com to this resource list Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos Trystanburke (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trystanburke: It seems that CactusWriter was suggesting above that additional due diligence was necessary before adding links. While you're waiting for a volunteer to do the due diligence you suggest, you might want to review Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. GoingBatty (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the note. It seems MusicBlvd has supplied sufficient evidence in their Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers. response. Do you still think it is necessary to go though the steps outlined here Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide? Trystanburke (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trystanburke: It seems that there are two different questions to be answered by someone more knowledgable than I am:

1. Is the response provided by MusicBlvd sufficient that people feel comfortable allowing links to MusicBlvd?
2. Is there anyone with a conflict of interest that chooses to not act in good faith with the guide above?

Again, there are people more experienced than I am in these matters, and I look forward to their responses. Happy holidays! GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was never that happy with the Metrolyrics linking - and my concerns were partially confirmed when many links were removed. I am even less convinced that MusicBoulevard are licenced. They claim they are licenced by Musixmatch, but Musixmatch doesn't hold the licences to grant to a third party. There would be obvious signs on the MusicBoulevard site to show they held the licences, not just a copy of an email partially blanked out - not the hardest thing to photoshop, either. If MusicBoulevard have the right to reproduce the lyrics with the permission of the copyright holders then they need to show it clearly. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: MusixMatch is indeed a licensed lyrics platform which tracks the impressions of each lyrics to it can compensate the author. They charge $1.40CPM for the lyrics displayed. Did you not read the details here at the MusixMatch Developer Portal? :@Richhoncho: Or this article clearly states how MusixMatch and LyricFind are providers of licensing NMPA's list of Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013?

The data is protected by copyright: Lyrics are copyrighted content and musiXmatch works directly with Music Publishers and Songwriters to ensure the right monetization of lyrics and the right exploitation of this content. You may not sell, lease, share, transfer, or sublicense the API or access to the API to any other party than the API key holder. You can cache our data to lighten bandwidth and improve latency, but don't crawl/spider our API and make a copy of our data to steal our mojo.

If you read further down in this response Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers., it also shows the MusixMatch API portal which shows activity for the entire month, as well as the MusixMatch logo on every page as instructed by MusixMatch Developer Portal

Are you an expert in this area? If this isn't sufficient evidence, then what is? Will you contact both nmadaj@nmpa.org and Gianluca@musixmatch.com? Trystanburke(talk) 03:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

:@GoingBatty: Thanks for the recommendation for mediation! We believe mediation is our next step unless @Richhoncho: or @CactusWriter: have anything else to say since we provided both documentation and contact information? Happy Holidays to all you guys. Trystanburke(talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Trystanburke, I'm sorry but as I see it, none of the problems have yet been resolved.

1. You were already informed by Moonriddengirl that letters scanned and posted online do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for reliability. In short: ...If MusiXmatch wants to publish something on their website clarifying the terms of any license [or that they] have extended their license to you, that may be helpful. Alternatively, they may be able to email info@wikimedia.org from an email address clearly associated with their domain clarifying the terms of their license. But please note that even if the copyright question is cleared up, that doesn't guarantee that MusicBlvd.com will be added to that section. That's an editorial matter... Any "official" communications with Wikipedia must be made through our WP:OTRS office.
2. The implication by musicblvd that it is the same company that sold music from 1995-1999 seems disingenuous. Purchasing a defunct domain name is not the same as "acquiring" the company. The original music-seller Music Boulevard was eventually absorbed into Amazon.
3. Your stated aim on Wikipedia "to advocate" and promote your website is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy. Please read our policy at Advocacy as well as the guideline at Advertising and Conflict of Interest.
4. The use of a meatpuppet to add links to Wikipedia is, to say the least, problematic. For example: your removal of an external link to a "competitor" website [1] and a few minutes later Sibtain 007 adding a link for musicblvd [2].

These issues give me great pause about permitting the addition of a (possibly unnecessary) link to your website on hundreds of Wikipedia pages. I appreciate that people have a website and they want to promote it but that is contrary to the function of an encyclopedia. I would like to hear the opinion of the project editors here before this can be resolved. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

:@CactusWriter: Thanks for your feedback. We have noted your comments and appreciate them.

I'd like to note that the same author who wrote NMPA's list of Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013 has now come forward on the University of Georgia website Verify MusicBlvd.com is Licensed.

To address your other points:

1. MusicBlvd will have MusixMatch email info@wikimedia.org to express that MusicBlvd.com has an enterprise license with said company.
2. Action Factory states MusicBlvd.com is the oldest music related domain. This statement is true. While it is a different company, musicblvd.com (the domain) still carries the history of it's predecessors.
3. MusicBlvd is speaking to editors to let them know MusicBlvd is compliant in licensing. It is an act to set the record straight and clear MusicBlvd.com's name.
4. Can you tell me who the project editors are? Why does MetroLyrics.com have the ability to be a resource, yet they have not had to prove they are compliant as well?

Again, thanks for patience.

Trystanburke(talk) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

People who have identified themselves as project editors are in Category:WikiProject Songs members. Note that this list will include people who are no longer active. GoingBatty (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:@CactusWriter: @Moonriddengirl: MusixMatch has sent correspondance to info@wikimedia.org stating MusicBlvd.com has a worldwide license. Please view the update here for proof -- Read Update 12/31/2013 Also, can you please check in with the receiver of info@wikemedia.org to validate? Trystanburke(talk) 22:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trystanburke: FYI, on the "Dear Wikipedia" page, the first Scribd image is displaying a "400 Bad Request" error. GoingBatty (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for the heads up, it looks like all is fine now on this updated page - Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers. Trystanburke(talk) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I am familiar with copyright law - although I have no pretence of being an expert. I am still not convinced this is a legal site - there are several reasons for this opinion, but I am happy to wait for somebody at WP with more experience than me to confirm the legality of the site. Until that point I am strongly opposed to the site becoming permitted site at WP. Most of what we are being shown seems manufactured, for instance, the purported email between 3 domains has a hyperlink for Googlemail at the bottom. Very strange. Although this may be the project that is most affected by the site, I am not sure there is enough legally-informed members to make a decision. Cheers. Happy New Year etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I think the decision should not be on the facts instead of email reprints, I wonder if someone is using Google Mail to read their Musicblvd.com email and having the hyperlink automatically created when the email is printed. GoingBatty (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

::@Richhoncho: @Everyone, Can someone just pick up the phone and call the National Music Publishers Association or email them at nmadaj@nmpa.org? It seems like some editors here are trying to find any excuse to question the legally of the site no matter what information is provided rather just calling or emailing themselves. Wikipedia is a non-profit that needs to support underdogs rather than favor big corporates. Trystanburke(talk) 03:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

::@Richhoncho: As for the Gmail, most people use Gmail or Google Apps these days and that is what it looks like when some reprints from the cloud. Your decision needs to be based on whether you speak with someone at MusixMatch or NMPA rather than what email provider one uses. Cheers. Trystanburke(talk) 03:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that is probably the way you read your business emails. I wouldn't find any advantage doing it that way, so I didn't even consider it a possibility. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Interpret WP:NSONG for me, please

I typically write about historic sites (my most recent work), so WP:NSONG and its interpretations are unfamiliar to me. How do we enforce it in regard to songs by major composers: do we assume that there's sufficient coverage for them to be notable, or do we tend to redirect a little-referenced stub instead of retaining it? I'm thinking of throwing something together for "O Jesulein süß, o Jesulein mild!", BWV 493, but I'm not sure if appearances in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (volume 4, page 800) and one JSTOR article are sufficient for a Bach piece (see List of songs and arias of Johann Sebastian Bach), or if I should wait to find more. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:REFERS and songs

I would welcome any comments for a thread I started over at Wikipedia_talk:Writing_better_articles#WP:REFERS_and_songs. It relates to how intros to song articles are written. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of "In the House of Stone and Light" song by Martin Page

In the House of Stone and Light seems to not have quite the right framework.

I am an Earth Scientist, a shy one at that, and the mecca of such natural sciences is the Grand Canyon. It has been referred to as The House of Stone and Light in at least one book about this wonder. The video itself has no references to the Canyon which is disappointing. Two of the references, Mount Kailas and Havasupai Shaman refer to the area and shaman is on of the terms for the medicine man of the American Indians.

I cannot fault the words, which I wish were included.

I have been in places, not nearly as grand, that gives me a similar feeling. The words are spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carcardon 2050 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg

This image is still nominated for deletion. See Material Girl before commenting there. --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Come a Little Closer (Cage the Elephant song) addition

Approximately 2 months ago, Cage the Elephant's VEVO channel on YouTube released the music video for their recent single "Come a Little Closer". Another section may need to be added to include this recent addition to this song. This may help extend the page and help improve the quality of the page. 162.40.240.36 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC) a Wikipedian viewer

Capitalization of song parenthetical subtitles

There's a bit of a dispute going on over the capitalization of song parenthetical subtitles (like "Album Version" vs. "album version", etc.). I tried and failed to find any existing guidelines specific to parenthetical subtitles, but the general capitalization guidelines seem to support the capitalized version. Current practice seems to lean towards non-capitalization, as does my vague sense of the usual practice outside Wikipedia. However, in various liner note track lists, the parenthetical subtitles are capitalized. Views from other editors would be gratefully welcomed. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)