Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SINGLE)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
 

Can it be appropriate sometimes to italicize singles? [edit]

From MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:MINORWORK:

Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work.

Given that singles may consist of more than one track and thus be considered a "major work", this guideline contradicts WP:MOSMUSIC

In popular music, album, mixtape and EP titles should be italicized and song and single titles should be in quotes

For example, "Fickle Cycle" from Grass (or "Grass"?) is not really a single nor a B-side, it's simply a track from a single. So shouldn't we be italicizing singles? I don't mean to italicize songs that were released as singles, but rather in cases like Grass, where we're explicitly referring to the entire release. Obviously this all ties further into the above RfC.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose italics for singles - I don't think we should be making changes that more distinguishing between singles and songs. In creating/maintaining album articles, its already a frequently point of argument as to whether or not releases are "singles", "promotional singles", or just "songs" in this modern age where digital song releases are frequently and easily done without much of a formal definition. Having to format accordingly would only make things worse. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There are no "points of argument", it simply is or isn't according to the dictations of the music industry. In the history of recording and publishing, a "single" has never meant the same thing as a "song". Recently, there's been a growing trend for singles to contain only one track, but that doesn't change anything about the classification. There are plenty of LPs comprising a single track - that doesn't mean they're singles. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad the whole situation is so black and white for you, but that doesn't change that editors are frequently arguing over it and confused over it. This is another "solution to a problem no one's having" type proposal. It would be a massive undertaking to implement and educate people on, with no actual benefit. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The benefit is that Wikipedia becomes a more accurate resource for information. "It would be tedious" is not a valid argument, neither is "some people disagree with authoritative sources". Those excuses didn't matter at "the Beatles"/"The Beatles" mediation, and they shouldn't matter here. Can you name a specific example where editors couldn't decide whether a song was released as a "single" or a "track"? Maybe we should establish a guideline for those scenarios. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether we use quotes or italics has no bearing on Wikipedia being an accurate resource for information, that's ridiculous. It's also rather bizarre to assume that people are "disagreeing with authoritative sources before I've even given you any examples of disputes yet. Is it worth digging up examples if you've already made up your mind on it based on zero evidence? Regardless, your allusion to mediation about the Beatles is a good reason to show why these proposals are unnecessary and counter-productive though. Such a massive timesink on something so minor. So much time wasted, with virtually no payoff. I think its best not to waste the community's time on this sort of thing when it can be avoided. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a world of difference between a "song" and a "single", not so much "The" or "the". A better parallel would be the difference between a "remix" and an "interpretive arrangement". And the payoff is similar to not hearing somebody say "I could care less" or "for all intensive purposes". It's not a world-shattering issue whether we get these things right, I'm only interested in what the "correct" answers are. Perhaps "Grass" and "'Grass'" are both acceptable typesets.
And "authoritative" can sometimes be subjective, obviously. Maybe a band records a double A-side that everybody thinks is an EP that gets placed on an LP record chart. That would be hard to figure.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment — To reiterate, the major/minor logic appears to go like this:
  • entity containing sub-entities = italics
  • sub-entity that is part of a greater entity = quotations
This is how I interpret appropriate usages:
Incorrect: The single Good Vibrations was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love
Correct: The song "Good Vibrations" was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love
Incorrect?: "Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks
Correct: Good Vibrations was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks
Correct?: "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the Good Vibrations single
Correct?: "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single
Correct: (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations
Correct?: (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile"
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to unarchive this from the most recent archive page, because it's closed with a lot of wrong advice (wrong from a WP/MOS perspective, and from that of other style guides, and basic logic, and independent reliable sources on music and record collecting). Short version at end; most of this is analysis and background. The overall view given above is misinterpreting the italics versus quotes relationship. It's not strictly "main work versus sub-work" at all. Italics are used for "major works", in a very vague sense, which includes novellas, operettas, small paintings, epic poems, short films, etc. – all rather short works in comparison to average novels, operas, larger artworks, collected volumes of poetry, feature films and TV series, etc. Quotation marks are used for "minor works", and they do not have to be sub-works of something else. If I write a song called "My Chicken Can Run Faster'n Yours" and never record it, so it is never a sub-work on an album or other release, it still gets quotation marks.

Next, people get EPs and singles mixed up, a lot, even within the industry, because the meaning has shifted over time. If you follow the nomenclature in music collector publications, comprehensive discographies, and other such works that are modern, a general consensus definition emerges that an EP is a "mini-album" with a discrete title of its own, and no fixed number of tracks, but it'll probably be considered an EP if the overall length is roughly 50% or less than of a typical album, and it's not mostly or entirely variants of the same track, nor a larger-format (e.g. 10″ or 12″) version of a 7″. Some EPs only have two tracks (e.g. Licht und Blindheit by Joy Division), and some people like to classify those as singles, regardless of artistic or label intent (that's a form of WP:OR). When the term originated, it meant an "extended play" version of a single, but this meaning is pretty much dead.

In modern terms, it's definitely a single if a) it's a pre-release of a song from an upcoming album, usually with another track or two or three; it's a re-release of a song on a current or recent album, usually with one or more additional tracks, c) it's a release of a song that isn't on or planned to be on an album at all, usually with one+ addl. tracks (and doesn't have a unique name, but is named for one of the included tracks). The additional tracks may be album tracks, or previously unreleased, or live cuts, or remixes. What makes it a single not an EP is it being named after the "A-side" (usually), or not having a name and just being something like "Good Vibrations"/"Let's Go Away for a While" on the labels (for media with such labels). People will argue about much later re-releases of material from an old album as new singles vs. EPs, with different people preferring a different classifier. The most consistent approach is to treat them as singles, unless they have a title that isn't a repeat of one of the song names, have "EP" in the title, or are consistently marketed as EPs, usually with some new content on them, that isn't just remixes of the title track, or previously released tracks. Regardless of that kerfuffle, a single can be multiple discs; I've seen some that were four discs with dozens of mixes of the same track and maybe one or a couple of other tracks, and pretty much no one calls them EPs.

Moving on, '"Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as ...' has as its subject a song title, so that gets quotes. A corrected table looks like this:

Incorrect: The single Good Vibrations was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love
Correct: The song "Good Vibrations" was written by Brian Wilson and Mike Love
Technically Correct,
but rather confusing
:
"Good Vibrations" was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks
Incorrect, and both
confusing and confused
:
Good Vibrations was reissued in 2006 as an EP containing additional tracks
Much clearer: In 2006, the EP Good Vibrations: 40th Anniversary Edition was released, with various versions of the title song and an additional track
if it really qualifies as an EP (which some will argue it does)
Also clearer
alternative:
"Good Vibrations" was re-released as a new single in 2006 with various versions of the title song and an additional track
if consensus agrees it's not really an EP
Incorrect: "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the Good Vibrations single
Correct: "Let's Go Away for Awhile" was the B-side of the "Good Vibrations" single
Incorrect: (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single Good Vibrations
Technically correct
but rather redundant
:
(in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations"
Correct: (in infobox context) "Good Vibrations" — Song by the Beach Boys from the single "Good Vibrations" / "Let's Go Away for Awhile"
a more complete reference of a very specific release

Part of the confusion in the original table seems to be a supposition along the lines "if something is in quotation marks then the other something it was published within must be in italics." Just not true. It'll be true of articles in a periodical and chapters in book – and songs on an album. It's not true of chapters that have subchapters (both "levels" get quotation marks), "epic" songs with multiple named movements (they both get quotation marks; some examples are Rush's "2012" on the album 2012, and Kate Bush's "The Ninth Wave" on Hounds of Love, not to be confused with the single "Hounds of Love", released in four versions with different B-sides), or a TV show episode with a title and several individually titled segments - all quotation marks again, with the series in italics. Similarly, two different "levels" of works can both be in italics, e.g. Michael Moorcock's novel The Jewel in the Skull and four others were republished in the single-vol. The History of the Runestaff; see also Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring as a stand-alone book and The Lord of the Rings as the complete work (though series/franchises do not take italics or quotation marks, except where the oeuvre as a whole is named after one of the constituent works, thus the Marvel Cinematic Universe but the Star Wars Expanded Universe). In short, there is no – and cannot be – any "only one thing can be italicized and one thing in quotes" rule, because works do not come in only two levels of titles.

Short version: Don't overcomplicate things. Albums and EPs get italics, songs and singles (including 12-inchers, maxi-singles, and multi-CD single packs) get quotation marks. Never waver from this pattern, and disputation will dissipate, being reserved for cases where the real world disagrees, e.g. about whether Licht und Blindheit is an EP or a single. Lean toward EP, since it isn't named after any song on it.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Song titles vs track titles[edit]

I've been doing some cleanup of tracklist templates and wanted to check regarding song titles. Not the titles of articles about songs, but the titles of the songs themselves, as they appear in double quotes.

  • When a track title includes something like (dance remix) or (acoustic version), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note?
  • When a track title includes something like (Intro) or (Interlude), is that part of the song title or a subordinate note to its function on the recording?

It seems pretty obvious to me but at least one editor disagrees and I felt I should get additional opinions. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

For me, it seems logical that in your first example, it's not part of the title, and in the second example, it is. There are many examples where "Intro" or "Interlude" is the only title of the track, so if you don't consider it part of the title, I don't know what you would call the track. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree with Richard3120 here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Same here. Not everything in parentheses is of the same character, and these two particular kinds of cases are clearly distinct.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Roll with the Punches[edit]

The following is a request from my talkpage. I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:-

Could you do what is necessary to change the redirect from Roll with the Punches away from Two (Lenka album)? There is also a Dawes song and now a Van Morrison album with the same title. Thank you for your help. I don't know how to do it.

I am not convinced what the correct procedure should be - a) a disambig page for 3 nn songs, leave as is, or something else:---Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we just get to what's real. [Sorry, couldn't resist.]  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Tiny Hands"[edit]

Resolved

Project members are invited to participate in the ongoing deletion discussion about Fiona Apple's protest song "Tiny Hands" for the 2017 Women's March at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Hands. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Make My Love Go[edit]

Ceryfication source doesnt works. Eurohunter (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: you mean the Netherlands certification website? No, it doesn't – there's nothing we can do about it, so please don't use it. Richard3120 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I just found it in article, its wrong generated and unsourced at this moment. Eurohunter (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that it used to work, but the NVPI removed the certifications from its website about two years ago, so none of them work now. Richard3120 (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it never worked correctly and there was archived some 2008 certyfications only. This single been released last year and entered Dutch charts in end of February. Eurohunter (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It did use to work, then as you correctly say, later it just showed some 2008 certifications, and now it doesn't show anything. Anyway, you are right about this song - it's from 2016 when the certifications weren't working at all, so I have no idea where the editor got the certification from. It should probably be deleted if we can't find a source for it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It been added here. Eurohunter (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

One-hit Wonder Criteria[edit]

Hello. There is an ongoing debate on the criteria for the one-hit wonders in America listings over here at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria. It'd be nice if we could get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

August Rigo link please[edit]

Hello, can we link August Rigo to his wikipedia page? He wrote this song as well as the new song Tough Love on Chris Brown's Heartbreak on a Full Moon album.

Sources[edit]

Hello. Replacement of the Discogs sources by iTunes or other shop is it positive and correct move? Is there a list It contains potential (common) banned sources? Eurohunter (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends what is being sourced. The problematic edits may be tagging the Discogs sources. Please explain what is being sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Date of single or album release in biography. Eurohunter (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Btw. which wikiproject is alive yet to ask there about musician biography? Eurohunter (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Discogs doesn't usually have a release date, it usually has a release year next to a label, Released. As for using iTunes or Amazon for an album release date, it's a primary source, but not particularly controversial, and is usually better than Discogs.
The project you might be looking for is Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

One-hit wonder inclusion criteria[edit]

If you're interested in the topic, your comments would be appreciated at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria where there is a discussion with sweeping ramifications about whether the "one-hit wonder" articles will be based on charting songs or on artists described in sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)