Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MUSIC)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Songs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Request for comment on "Top Down Approach to Notability"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Opposed.Notability is rarely distributive over associated subjects, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV and a lot of other valid reasonings against the motion.No strong rebuttals, without violating fundamental policies etc. is observed.Winged Blades Godric 14:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am proposing a guideline, that using what I call a "Top Down Approach", if a song is notable, if the tune is an original composition by an artist, and the album that contains that song is the first album, and/or the only album to contain that song, that the album should probably be notable. I ran into this with "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy", whose history used to be an album article before being deleted at AFD. An album is a collection of songs, and if the songs are extensively reviewed, the album is essentially being reviewed.
Similarly, if an album by an artist is notable, the artist probably should also be notable, as the article can discuss the albums, and potentially the songs. This "Top Down Approach" can be applied to large companies, and other entities as well. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Thank you very much. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This clearly flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. An album by a notable artist isn't inherently notable. For instance, Diamond Rio released I Made It last year, but it's so obscure that it's not even on Allmusic, and there are no reviews. EPs are generally not notable unless they contain material not otherwise released, or got multiple reviews of the EP. Songs do not transfer notability to their albums. Also, in cases such as Makin' This Boy Go Crazy, all of the songs on the EP ended up on the full album anyway, so the EP has no standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    Comment This is the exact inverse of NOTINHERITED. Using your example, a notable album likely means the artist is notable, although Jax 0677's starting point was a song.
    Your position is notable artist does not mean that every work is notable. I fully agree with that.
    Jax 0677's point is that if there is a notable work, the creator of that work is likely notable.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Reply - @Walter Görlitz:, I agree that "notable artist does not mean that every work [of that artist] is notable". What I proposed, is that if SONG "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy" is notable, then ALBUM Makin' This Boy Go Crazy is likely notable, and MUSICIAN Dylan Scott is likely notable. In other words, to merge up to the next higher entity.
    • Comment Just a quick chime-in - I have always operated under this principle at AfD and in writing articles. If work by a creator receives coverage, that is coverage of the creator as well (be it song review, album review, show review, etc.). Chubbles (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the first suggestion that an album inherits notability from individual tracks - I get the impression in the age of the download albums receive far less attention than individual tracks. If a track or single is reviewed in isolation then that helps the single's notability, not the album (which would often be put together at a later date anyway).
    But as far as musicians inheriting notability from things they themselves create, well, that makes common sense to me. It follows the thinking of WP:CREATIVE. If authors and painters can be notable for creating notable work, why not musicians too. Sionk (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment - Though EPs and singles are becoming more prominent than LPs over time, EPs and LPs still exist in numerous quantities, and contain a multitude of songs. Therefore, a song can make an album notable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose To meet the general notability guideline, the topic (album or artist) must have "'Significant coverage' [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As a practical matter, what would there be to write about if the album or artist has no significant coverage? The article would be OR or a permastub. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Reply - If the song or album is notable, it can either have a separate article, or be merged into the article about the album or artist, respectively. The goal of Wikipedia is to educate people, so an article about the album or artist with mentions about the songs or albums better serves that purpose than "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy" does, as that page does not mention "Mmm, Mmm, Mmm" like the Makin' This Boy Go Crazy album article did at one time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the general point is, just because an individual song was a runaway #1 hit, and therefore easily qualifies for an article, if the album containing the song went unnoticed (no reviews, no charting, etc), it would not qualify. So, if you really want to create an article for the album or EP, try to find some sources that you can use to try and establish notability. Robman94 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose also Don't forget that people use Wikipedia for primary research, and adding "regulations" and guidelines for what should be included and what should be excluded impacts what people find when they use Wikipedia. The supposition of what is "notable" is a matter of opinion (for instance I don't believe "rap" to be music) so excluding songs which people might search for background information on just because they are rare songs or were fleeting, that's something that's against the general reason why Wikipedia exists in the first place. Damotclese (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Damotclese: I think you've missed the point. This isn't stating that an article about a song should not appear just because it is "fleeting", it's stating that if a song is notable, it's likely that the album on which it appears is notable and the artist or band that performed it is notable. That notability is because the parent subjects will likely be discussed as part of the discussion of the other topic. Unlike NOT:INHERITED, where it's stated that all works of a notable subject are not immediately considered notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support Several commenters here seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Jax's original proposal (though this does not necessarily mean they would have supported it if they had understood it). Coverage of an artist's work makes that artist notable, and this is true whether the reporting institution frames its coverage as being of that artist or of the work (e.g., whether they frame it as a profile piece or as an album or song review). This is occasionally mistaken as a NOTINHERITED problem, but in general, I think it makes little sense to think of an album review as being about a notable object rather than about the work of a notable person. So Jax's claims that song coverage or album coverage makes the artist notable is both already standard practice and should be codified as a general guideline to minimize confusion on the point.
    That leaves the question of whether song coverage makes an album notable. The big problem here is that many editors, including many who edit frequently in music, often conceive of albums as totally separate entities divorced from their makers, requiring separate substantial notability for a separate article. There are several editors who furiously dedicate much of their time on Wikipedia to rooting out and deleting (or more often, just unilaterally redirecting) albums without a battery of album reviews tacked on to them. This is an unfortunately narrow way of thinking about Wikipedia's coverage of popular music. Wikipedia could be a great resource for artist discographical information, in much the same way it serves as a gazetteer for geographical places, but the album-deletion efforts stymie this, because they remove legitimate information based on a misguided belief about the purpose of the notability requirement. If an album by a notable artist doesn't have a lot of third-party coverage, relevant discographical information (track listing, label, release date, etc.) could be left in a separate article (for reader convenience and ease of site use - it's annoying to have artists with, say, six albums but only two album articles), or it could all be merged into a single artist discography page (thus pushing the notability question back toward the artist), or it could be merged into the artist page itself. (I presume all of this information meets WP:V, and it usually does, in my experience.) But this kind of work almost never happens, at least in part because I think our music editors have not really thought creatively and critically about how best to structure the delivery of musical information to meet the needs of people interested in music. So maybe by asking about notability, we are asking the wrong question - instead, we should be thinking about what the best way to structure encyclopedic content is. Jax's proposal is at least a start down that road. Chubbles (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe the two things originally proposed need to be taken as separate discussions. Like you, I would have very different opinions on each. Sionk (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
    Bit late to this party but as a newby, @Chubbles:'s points make sense to me. I think we need to be aware of the NOT:INHERITED principle which is there for a purpose. But I also think we need to apply it with some common sense and from a user perspective. If an album is notable then it's likely that some information about the artist is also relevant. Whether the artist info is better placed on the Album page or on a separate page depends. I think most users would - in most cases - expect the artist info to be on a separate page. In most cases I think an album's notability would reflect positively on the artist's notability. In practice, I would expect the sources that indicate the album's notability to (directly) indicate the artist's notability equally well. My key point (which is one of the 'pillars' (?)) is not to apply good principles and guidelines so strictly and automatically that they become detrimental rather than beneficial for information consumers in some cases.Mikemorrell49 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Considering a label, an artist, an album, and a song, notability for any one will tend to increasing interest and coverage of related items in the list. However notability is not automatically inherited in any direction between them. It's possible for one to get significant coverage, with mere verifiable-existence coverage for another. If someone is seeking comprehensive and indiscriminate catalog/discography information, there are better places than Wikipedia to find it. Wikipedia does not and should not include the entirety of AllMusic, an entire catalog of corporation listings, the entirety of NASA's star and celestial-object catalogs, and hundreds of other comprehensive catalogs. Alsee (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Do you mean by that to say that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to include comprehensive discographical information for a notable artist - that it would be indiscriminate to include a listing of all studio albums and singles from that artist, and track listings for those albums? I can't imagine anything more encyclopedic about a musical artist - not even biographical data. Chubbles (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. It strikes me as very odd that the occasional album from a notable artist could potentially be excluded as "non-notable" even if every other album from the same artist qualifies for its own article. In such cases a more consistent approach would be appropriate. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    You're arguing the wrong thing. The occasional album a notable artist is excluded as non-notable as it's not inherited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Why is NOTINHERITED the most important guideline to follow here? We often split off discography pages from artists for convenience, but in most cases, "the discography of artist X" is not in itself notable - artist X is. That's no more a NOTINHERITED problem than an album page, ultimately - it's about logical organization of the topic, rather than hidebound devotion to ensuring no album that hasn't been reviewed by five or six sources gets an article. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Who says it is? A discography article for an artist isn't a NOTINHERITED problem. Each article must stand on its own. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Why isn't a discography article for an artist a NOTINHERITED problem? I think it is only because we say it doesn't matter in this case - because it's logical organization to farm out the discography to a separate page. Chubbles (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    It's a size issue. If there's enough present for a stand-alone article, move it and leave simple entries for the studio albums. The names and release dates shouldn't really be an issue. Charting needs to be referenced. Sales figures need to be referenced. However, just because an artist exists doesn't mean that the artist needs to have a discography article. And just because an artist has release a work doesn't mean that a discography article should be created. It's conceivable that a group (for instance, the Symphony Orchestra of a small town that is staffed with players from a nearby large city) or an artist has released fifteen or twenty albums, with the accompanying singles, without any of them achieving notability. the lack of articles for singles and albums does not preclude a discography article, but it would be odd to have one as the releases likely don't take-up a lot of space in the article. Again, it's a size issue, not a NOTINHERITED issue. Do you see it as a NOTINHERITED issue? Feel free to explain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Size is a logical organization issue. Chubbles (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I want to make the point, which I haven't seen articulated often enough in the above, that the principle of encyclopaedicity should trump NOTINHERITED each, and every time. Coverage of all notable artists should include encyclopaedic (that is, comprehensive) coverage of their works, even when artists have minor works that are not individually notable. Also, as WP:ARTIST implies, all artistic works are produced by artists - there is no such thing as a notable work without a notable artist (barring the novel boundary case of AI-generated works), NOTINHERITED notwithstanding. The work may be better-documented than the artist, and in some cases the identity or available information about the artist(s) may not actually be sufficiently well-documented to support an article, but artists do not need to be "noteworthy" in the sense of generating coverage apart from their artistic work in order to meet the GNG.
TL; DR - notable works imply notable artists and deserve encyclopaedic coverage; in some cases this can be incorporated within an artist article and in other cases in a list article, which depends on considerations of length, rather than principle, as has been discussed at length above. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Let me take this in priority order. You have it backward. If a work is be better-documented than the artist, it is likely notable (this assumes that the documentation is in reliable sources that are independent). The creator of that work, therefore, is notable because of the work. Period. That is not what NOTINHERITED states. And it is what is being suggested here.
NOTINHERITED states that if you have a notable artist (Cliff Richard or Christopher Cross) not all of the artist's works should have an article just because they were created by the notable artist (The 31st of February Street or Rendezvous respectively) because each work must stand on its own. It does not mean that an encyclopedic mention of the album should not be made in the artist's article or in the artist's discography. And WP:ARTIST, by extension, supports that. Piet Mondrian and Albrecht Dürer are notable painters, but not all of their paintings, collections or periods have articles. Margaret Atwood, Flannery O'Connor and William Golding are all notable authors, but not tome they penned has an article (and I see that some that do have articles shouldn't, but I'll let someone else address that problem). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed criteria for record labels[edit]

There was a conversation starting a few months ago at WikiProject Music regarding criteria for the notability of record labels. Several editors expressed concern that WP:CORP, occasionally brought up in AfD discussions, was a poor fit for judging record label notability, and that this guideline says little about label notability (though it does mention labels in bullet 5). The discussion seems to have petered out at that venue, but a draft set of label notability guidelines was generated as a result of the process. I am cleaning it up and posting it here for potential inclusion in this document.

Here's the draft list:

  1. Meets the GNG.
  2. Is an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable.
  3. Is (verifiably) key to the establishment, continuance, or resurgence of interest in a musical genre or regional musical scene.
  4. Releases work which is routinely covered in trade publications or music criticism, or receives non-trivial mention itself in such coverage.
  5. Is catalogued in major discographical resources (e.g., standard published jazz or classical discographies).

Pinging interested editors from the previous discussion: @Walter Görlitz: @78.26: @Michig: @Robman94: @Theodore Kloba: @Richard3120: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbles (talkcontribs)

@Walter Görlitz, 78.26, Michig, Robman94, Theodore Kloba, and Richard3120: Re-notifying since it wouldn't have worked without a signature. Jc86035 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume we are discussing distinct options: either 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. The first isn't even worth adding since GNG covers it. I very much like wording of 3 and would make "verifiably" key to each of the other three. For 2, I would argue than "many" is not precise enough and instead I would say "at least half" or "at least ten". There are vanity labels (I have been dealing with one lately) that are started by an artist, and that artist then takes on distinct personae or forms slightly different bands, all "signed" to that label, and each meets MUSICBIO, so you could quickly assume the label is notable. 4. is problematic. There are small niche labels (rap, modern jazz, etc.) that will be covered by niche trade publications (Rapzilla, etc.) and so does that make the label notable? I think it needs to be fleshed-out much more. Otherwise, this is a good start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    I had very much thought of this as akin to the existing guidelines - it identifies a series of potential avenues for establishing notability, any one of which can be sufficient (and if more than one is met, the case is correspondingly stronger). For that reason, I included #1, since it's basically like bullet 1 for artists here. Adding a definite threshold, like "at least half" or "at least ten", seems arbitrary - by comparison, even the GNG and WP:MUSIC bullet 1 don't specify the exact threshold of sources needed to establish notability. There are going to be cases where plainly notable labels won't hit that half threshold, and some noteworthy labels sign very few artists in total. As for niche labels...well, the circumstance you describe does sound like it would indicate such a label is notable, so maybe I'd have to see an example of why this could be problematic to really understand the concern there. Chubbles (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Chubbles for doing this. Regarding "many notable artists" it's hard, and perhaps unwise, to quantify. I see a some EDM labels with a large number of barely notable artists, and then as mentioned, there are some labels with fewer than five but highly notable artists. Which label is likely more notable? I'd argue for the second. Regarding "routinely covered" I like the wording, but should the phrase "reliable and independent" should be added? Some jazz journals were closely associated with labels. Some fanzines aren't worth their paper or bytes, etc. Regarding discographies, I'd also add in a mention of label discographies, to me a label included in the legacy web numerical discographies with editorial oversight is a strong indication of notability. This is opposed to a site (wonderful though it is) like discogs, where any record at all may appear. Just some preliminary thoughts. (ps thanks also to Jc86035 for the ping! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, I agree that the vague terms need to be defined, or we'll still find ourselves in AfDs arguing over whether X is enough to qualify as "many" or "more than a few". My opening shot would be that 5 notable bands should qualify along with a history of at least 3 years for #2. For #3, can we talk about how one might prove that a label is important for a genre? It would be easy to prove that 2 Tone Records was important for ska, for example, as I assume there's lots of coverage on it, but then again, that coverage in of itself would give you GNG, but what about the genre that is a little more underground, what if I could cite a 100 blogs that talk about XYZ Records and the ABC genre? Blogs are not RS, but they would indicate that importance, if taken all together rather than individually. Thoughts? Robman94 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • #1 GNG is an automatic primary critera. #2 roster of many notable artists is good. #3 looks like a mess: establishment, continuance, or resurgence of interest in a musical genre or regional musical scene. I can see an enthusiast of any obscure genre/label/band appealing to any portion of that. It gets a lot worse when you explicitly invite people to argue a "regional" interpretation. It would take a seriously exceptional case for this to be legitimate in the absence of GNG and the absence of a roster of notable artists. #4 looks like a repeat of #2 and #1, for labels that have failed #2 and #1. That's kinda broken. #5 Catalog type listings are broadly considered unhelpful for establishing Notability. One of the key purposes of Notability criteria is to ensure we actually have sufficient source material to generate an encyclopedic article. GNG does ensure that, and having a significant roster of Notable artists provides reasonable encyclopedic content. However mere appearance in catalogs does not allow us to produce anything more than a catalog listing ourselves. We don't do catalog listings. Alsee (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Labels often play powerful roles in creating or maintaining musical scenes - think of how a label like Arhoolie has played a continuing role in the musical life of many different styles of folk and roots music. Reissue labels can play that same role - a label like Light in the Attic Records has that quality. #3 is intended to reflect that. #4 is a reflection of the fact that coverage in music press outlets often focuses on an artist, even when the label itself is often the story - magazines often write stories about how "Band X signs to Label Y", where Band X is putting out its first album; this is coverage of Band X, but the real story is that Band X was picked up by a much more noteworthy distributor. Mere mention in a catalog doesn't mean much, but discographical catalogs often have listings of releases, which would verifiably fill out an artist list; this serves the same function that #2 serves. Chubbles (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see why WP:NCORP is not suitable? Many of the AfD discussions end up either pointing out that notability isn't inherited or that the coverage isn't in-depth or that the coverage isn't intellectually independent. Suggestion #2 appears to be the opposite of the intention of not allowing inherited notability. Suggestion #5 appears to be a way to allow for a trivial mention to establish notability. Perhaps if someone here can point to an AfD debate involving a label where some quality or attribute of a "label" was being ignored or downplayed, it might be easier to understand the precise "problem" if one exists (and I'm not convinced there is). -- HighKing++ 16:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Some of my interest in doing a little work here came from a discussion had some time ago at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Fake Four Inc. WP:CORP, I think, misses the point, because the main reason we would have an article about a label is about its contributions to aesthetics and culture, rather than its status as an organization or business entity. Very few labels are big enough to make the business news pages, and it would be missing the point, in most cases, to write about them in that way. Bands are businesses, too; we could judge their notability solely via WP:CORP if we wished, but we do not treat them that way here at WP:MUSIC, nor should we. Chubbles (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


Is Which Billboard charts are enough to establish notability (as billboard seem to have 1 million and one random charts)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are the national singles and albums charts - a top 100 placing in either is a good guide to notability. Beyond that I'd say top 20 in the major genre charts is probably enough. There are quite a few other Billboard charts that don't seem much use in judging notability. --Michig (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I would argue a more restrictive valued of "top five" in the niche charts and placing on the two Michig stated are enough to assume the subject meets notability criteria, but it's always best to find additional sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Any of the sales/airplay charts ought to be enough. Genre and market-specific charts are useful empirical indicators of popularity, and the notability standard here makes no mention of cutoffs. The R&B, rock, country, alternative, jazz, even the new age charts - every artist that hits these Billboard charts is notable. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That every charting artist or work is notable is not supported here. That it may be notable is supported. I agree that we have not codified a cut-off in the guidelines, but I regularly have difficulty finding RSes to support notability for subjects on niche charts when they have (or are) works lower than No. 5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's ever been true (over the lifetime of Wikipedia). Billboard is, itself, an RS, and virtually every artist that reaches the American charts in most genres gets additional coverage beyond it - certainly in rock, pop, country, dance, etc. The exceptions might be the very-out-of-the-way charts, like indigenous roots music - and coverage by Billboard of such groups, I would argue, should be enough to establish them for notability purposes (WP:SYSTEMIC, for instance, comes into play there). Chubbles (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been true. While Billboard is a reliable source, it's just a chart and does not meet the significant coverage portion required for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This is WP:MUSIC. The GNG is not required to establish notability - it is one of twelve possible indicators. Chubbles (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
MUSIC defers to GNG, which is why the MOS does not state that the criteria confirms that the subject is notable, only that it may be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Never has. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Then explain why "may be" is in each guideline section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a guideline, a 'rule of thumb', not a rule. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:NALBUM defers to N: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Similar for WP:NSONG: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The conversation thread directly above this one suggests that the wording of those passages may merit revisiting. Chubbles (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Top 10 singles[edit]

I have been improving top 10 singles articles for the UK charts. I have a query about a couple of situations where a song has been reissued later the same year, should it count as a separate entry for each artist - I am talking specifically about 1985, when Band Aid's original version was still in the chart at the beginning of the year, and then the song was re-issued with a new remix at the end of the year with the same artists.

Should I combine the number of weeks in the "entries by artist" table for both entries, and count them as one release, or do they count as two separate songs and therefore each featured act's total should be raised by one? A similar point over Last Christmas that same year, where it entered in 1984, was in the chart for the early weeks of the year, and reissued over Christmas 1985 (technically not a re-entry like in this and last year's christmas chart).

For now I have got them as separate entries in the chart but combined the figures for entries by artist but I change this if needed. 03md 11:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Classical Music[edit]

Hi all. I don't think this current page works very well for Classical music, specifically the "songs" category. Most classical music is never going to rank, eliminating number one, and most classical music is not going to win a Grammy, eliminating number two. That leaves three, "has been independently recorded," which admittedly works, if we consider the average city symphony orchestra to be a notable group. However, category three, while it works, generally misses what makes Classical music notable, and would turn Wikipedia into a catalog of "Classical FM's Top 500" rather than an encyclopedic discussion of notable works of Classical music. It would also create a bias towards orchestral works, as chamber ensembles typically do not have as much notability as symphony societies.

I don't have an answer as to what Classical notability requirements should be, but I have some suggestions which could be refined into something better by more experienced editors.

1. The work is written about or analyzed at length in an independent secondary source. The book does not need to be about the work, but it should be a non-trivial mention analysis of the work. A good example of this would be Beethoven's string quartets--there are multiple scholarly books about them.

2. The work is considered a "standard" part of the repertoire for a particular instrumental grouping. For example the Vaughan Williams Oboe Concerto is not well known even within the classical music world, but within the oboe world it's known as one of the two most significant works written for oboe in the 20th century, and arguably since the early Romantic period, which makes it or its partner the Strauss Oboe Concerto essentially mandatory for oboe students auditioning to get into a master's program. Furthermore, what I just stated can be verified on the internet. Another example would be Cambini's Wind Quintets--again, while they're not typically known in the classical music world, these three quintets essentially founded the woodwind quintet as a modern ensemble, which makes them very notable.

3. The work has been recorded independently by notable ensembles. (This would be keeping the third requirement of the original song category, and would be especially helpful for modern classical music, as those pieces usually haven't been around long enough to have had proper analyses written about them, or to have become part of the standard repertoire.)

Any of these three points could be used to establish notability, rather than needing all three.

Points number two and three would be important in providing some guidance for people writing articles about concert band works, as concert band has established lists of standards maintained by state authorities and other organizations, and right now the concert band works part of Wikipedia is pretty weak and all over the place.

(NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC))

Disagree with this proposal to add massive layers of unnecessary complexity. FYI, a Beethoven string quartet is not a song. Vaughan Williams's Oboe Concerto is not a song (etc). So why would compositions that easily pass WP:GNG be first translated into songs, then end up in guidance that doesn't fit, and can only be made to fit to these compositions when adding massive complications?
Also the whole analysis of ensembles ("bias towards orchestral works") is missing the point: classical music "songs" are most often not recorded by "notable groups" (e.g., not every notable singer combined with a notable pianist does necessarily make a notable "group"), while they'd easily pass "released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" (emphasis added).
Also, why should a modern classical song with no notable recordings nor independent reporting about it have a separate article? Either its composer is notable or not: when the composer is notable, documented compositions can be mentioned in the composer's biographical article; or the composer is not notable enough for a separate article, and if in that case there is no independently commented recording, nor other independent commentary about the song, then we certainly shouldn't have a separate article on this song. Wikipedia is not for promotion of what has no significant coverage in usual media. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Your first criteria is WP:GNG and is not needed. Again, your second criteria is GNG again. If a community knows about it, it can be sourced to that community and passes GNG. The third criteria is not workable. There are plenty of classical works that have been recorded by an independently notable ensemble, such as the Kronos Quartet or a major symphony, that fails the most simple notability criteria. So that doesn't fly in any way with me. Even if two notable solo performers record a work, but it's just a filler on their album, does that make it notable? No. So in my opinion, the first two criteria are superfluous and the third is not a sign of notability. Also, Francis Schonken makes excellent points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight, everyone. I was not intending to refer to non-notable modern classical songs. My primary concern was that a number of important standard repertoire pieces have not been recorded by notable ensembles, for the reason that certain ensemble groupings that were once popular are no longer popular. However, I underestimated the number of notable ensembles.(NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC))