Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Disambiguation page for "Inhaler" song vs artist[edit]

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Unwell genre add[edit]

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfcool (talkcontribs) 23:03, October 22, 2013 (UTC)


Pearls in her hair and Evil Ebenezer's I'm leaving song.


"based on a Cuban folk tune "La canción del árbol" ("The song of the tree")". So it says everywhere. With no attribution/reference. As a Spanish speaker I can't find this mythical original song.

Year of a song[edit]

I was just going through some of the entries in "Category:1971 songs" because the category had gotten added incorrectly to an article which is on my watchlist, and I wanted to see if there were other errors. I have a question: for songs in the era of recorded music, what year - or years - should a song be categorized in? The text at the top of the categories presently says "written or first produced in" a certain year. I was interpreting for a while as "written or first recorded", but, after looking at some articles, I now think that was a mistake, because when the song was actually recorded is frequently difficult to determine, and in some cases seems fairly unimportant (for instance, if the song was released years after the recording).

So, maybe the song should be categorized into one or more of the following: the year written (which could be assumed to be the year recorded, if known, unless known otherwise), the year first publicly performed (which again could be assumed to be the year written), and the year of release of the first recording. Or, we could simply list everything by first recording date only. Thoughts? (Sorry if this has come up before, I'm not a regular here.)

If we want to categorize by first commercial release date, that should be made clear in the text at the top of the song by year categories. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always categorized them by year of release, even if they are known to have been recorded or performed before. A movie is also probably ready much before its premiere, but we always consider the year of premiere as the year to categorize it. Victão Lopes Fala! 19:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"I agree with Brianyoumans, "to categorize by first commercial release date, [and] that should be made clear in the text at the top of the song by year categories." —Iknow23 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see where Brian is coming from and I don't disagree, however, I thought I'd just add some thinking matter to the discussion.

  1. The year a song is written is often without any verification.
  2. Many songs were written before the recording process was invented.
  3. Many songs were published on paper first.
  4. Dylan's basement tapes, should the songs be classified as when recorded/written (1967?) or when first released (1975 or 2014)?

With those points in mind I think the year of song should be the first verifiable existence of the song which will primarily be the first appearance on an album, but not always. But where an earlier performance can be verified that should be the year of song. Basement Tape songs should be 1967 because they are contemporary with other '67 songs, rather than 1975 or 2014 songs.
Now comes the real problem, but that into a short understandable phrase we can all follow. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the year of initial release is appropriate for all songs, but some songs particualrly archive releases, such as the Basement Tapes (or Springsteen's Tracks as another example), should also include the original writing or recording year if reliabily sourced. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rlendog:. I think I am reading you wrong. Are you suggesting that a song may be categorized more than once in the Year of song categories? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I am thinking that a song from the Basement Tapes could be both a 1967 song and a 1975 song (or 2014 song). Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be totally opposed to that because it would make the whole category scheme meaningless. Mixing up Year of writing, year of publication, year of recording, year of release, years of subsequent release would be pointless. Would a song like Yesterday (Beatles song) be listed every year because every year there is a new release by somebody or other? Whether there should be different category schemes is another matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not go that far, but I think there are situations where a particular song can be considered as belonging to more than 1 year. Where there is a significant gap between the recording and release would be one such instance. Another (which I acknowledge might be harder to monitor) would be if there was a particularly significant re-release, such as a charting cover single. Although that may not be necessary as single releases have their own category for year of release. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If there needs to be a 1-1 relationship, then maybe the category should be renamed and possibly split as "Songs initially released in XXXX" and/or "Songs recorded in XXXX." Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I agree with Rlendog; I don't think it would be unreasonable to list some songs twice, or in exceptional circumstances even three or more times. I don't think this would happen very often; most songs will simply be listed in one year, the year of release. If the year of writing/recording is different, it could be listed under that year. And I think it would make sense to list a few songs under more than one year of release, if a rerelease or rerecording charts significantly. For example, Candle in the Wind was written/recorded in 1973, commercially released in 1974, but achieved its greatest chart successes in 1988 (a live version) and (rewritten for Princess Diana) in 1997. I think it might be reasonable to list it under all four years. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Candle in the Wind and Candle in the Wind 1997 are already separated as two articles, and have two different year of single release dates. Single releases are not being discussed here. The present category, as it stands, surely means date of creation of song, even thought that information is generally accepted as meaning first time available to the public because we cannot verify date of creation? To inflate that meaning with dates of release (whether album, single, download, re-release, greatest hits, recorded by other artists etc etc etc) AND dates of recording (including songs re-recorded, performed live etc etc etc) would destroy this category by adding non-defining criteria. If you and Rlendog think there should be other categories, then that's worth a debate. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did say that I don't usually participate here, although I have written some songwriter and song articles. I do see the distinction... Although, of course, soon (if not already) the criterion will have to be "commercial release as a paid download" or something like that. I was thinking of the song category as "years that a song is strongly associated with", and if we restrict the "Song" category to the year of writing and the "Single" category to the year of release as a single, that would leave out other years the song is associated with. Candle in the Wind (1997) has its own page, but the 1986-7-8 live version doesn't. And there are instances where a song is simply rereleased and then charts - surely each rerelease wouldn't get a new article? Thinking out loud here... I suppose we might be better off with a set of rules that is simple and fits 95% of the cases, which would argue for simply the year of commercial release. 04:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No problems, Brian, I have seen you around many times. If some "relatively unknown" artist releases an album with a cover on it, to the fan, that is notable, including the year of release of the album and will add to song article. So now we have, for example, Yesterday (Beatles song) categorized by 1966 through to 2015 songs. Is it defining that, say, Daffy Duck released a recording of the song in 19XX? What does that mean, is that defining for the song? No it is not defining. What is defining is that it is a 1965 song. The important part of the description of year of song is "first", take that away and the category might as well be deleted as meaningless and non-defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Further Comment. The category says, Songs written or first produced in (year). This is a category that states when written or first became known. A recording release year, irrespective of the medium, is a commercial release, and relates to the record company, the artist (who may not be the creators of the song) and their products. The two things are different, to merge the two would be similar to merging chalk and cheese! --Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

An an example, how should "Mean Old World" be categorized? It was performed during 1939–1940, but not recorded until 1942 and finally released in 1945. Many RS identify it as "Walker's 1942 recording" or "a 1942 song" and it is difficult to find a mention that it was first released in 1945. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If RS says 1939 then that must be the earliest verifiable date of writing. If an earlier date becomes verifiable, then we need to move to the earlier date. I certainly wouldn't want 1939, 1942 and 1945 used - which defeats the object of the category - songs written in year. A lot of this discussion is because the words "recording" "song" "single" and "release" are used interchangeably, when they are not interchangeable, and have different specific meanings. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So then it would be: "Songs should be categorized by date using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released." If this is the case, the language should be standardized for all mentions: WP:SONG#Categories ("Year of publication or release"), Category:Songs by year ("Songs by the year in which they were released (or, in the case of unreleased songs, the year in which they were composed or finished)"), and the various Category:YEAR songs ("Songs written or first produced in YEAR"), etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Good points, so good I amended the project, then decided I was premature. The problem is the ("Songs by the year in which they were released (or, in the case of unreleased songs, the year in which they were composed or finished)"), is if a songs is unreleased then it should not be in a list of released songs, so that seems a bit strange. "Songs written or first produced in YEAR" is weak but suggests what the category should be, the year the song is written or when unknown, when first performed. The project page can be clarified when the categories have been harmonized. Any ideas on improved wording? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was suggesting the first sentence:
  • "Songs should be categorized by date using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released."
I included the others to show (apparently not very clearly) that there are three different (at least) definitions:
  • WP:SONGS#Categories first bullet currently includes: "Year of publication or release is normally ..."
  • Category:Songs by year includes: "Songs by the year in which they were released (or, in the case of unreleased songs, the year in which they were composed or finished)."
  • Category:YEAR songs includes: "Songs written or first produced in YEAR"
These should be replaced by one standardized phrase. I hoped the suggestion would cover all three of the mentions/definitions: 1) only one year, the earliest, is used, 2) it must come from a RS, and 3) by using "or", a song could be written but never released, performed but never recorded, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think earliest year written, performed, recorded or released would work. An artist might write the song over several periods (might Paul McCartney have started, or even completed, writing "Yesterday" in 1964?), and may write several songs that only become known when they are released (perhaps commercially, perhaps in live performance) and the year of release is generally far more the defining characteristic. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So using the "Mean Old World" example, what year(s) should the song be categorized? ("One After 909" may be a better example). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Ojorojo has it about right (sorry for being a little dense earlier), but I would like to think about it a little more. Rlendog, Yes some songs take years to write, but WP cannot assume what is going on with one and his guitar, which is why there is such an emphasis on RS and ultimately on first performance, release or publication - in most instances we cannot go earlier, but it would be silly to categorise a Stephen Foster song as anything later than pre-1864, or a Jumi Hendrix song post his death. Let's not confuse creativity with commercialism. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I was actually going to use One After 909 as an example. But what would we use if we go by the earliest year? We know it was written before 1962, but we don't know which year. We know it was recorded in 1963 and then again 1969 (the recording that was first released) and that it was first released in 1970. As far as I am concerned - and I think as far as most people are concerned - that would make it a 1970 song. If we have an RS that it was performed in Hamburg in 1961 then I could go with 1961 (but that would probably be a situation where I would argue for multple dates, 1961 and 1970) but except for unsual situations (such as Basement Tapes or Tracks, i.e., songs from the archive) I don't think year written should be considered more defining than year first released (or perhaps first performed). Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Rlendog, if the wording is changed to allow for multiple years for performances, releases, etc., it will open the door for trolls, fans, etc. to add many poor examples. I think one earliest date would provide the best solution and the importance given by RSs should determine whether that is writing, recording, release, etc. Additional releases as singles can be added using Category:YEAR single. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Rlendog. Without a song being written there is no recording/performance because there is no song. There is also Category:Year of song missing and Category:Year of song unknown for instances where we cannot be sure. Songwriting is incremental, without One after 909 being written how many similar Beatle songs might not have been written or at least being written differently? Could Lennon reference a song written in 1965 for One After? We could debate which year One After 909 should be categorized, but it shouldn't be later that 1963 in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I fully support that the wording be changed, as suggested by Ojorojo, to

  • "Songs should be categorized by date using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released."

It captures the spirit of what the category is trying to achieve.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    • I think that will create more problems than permitting the ocassional possiblility of mutiple years. Most people associate song years with their release, so even if there is a reliable source that Paul McCartney completed "Yesterday" in 1964, editors would be constantly updating the year to 1965. Year written is also more subject to multiple reliable sources disagreeing. And in many cases may not even be clearly defined. For example, when a song is written over multiple years, or effectively written in 1977 but recorded in 1978 with some changes to the original version. If we want a category for year written that is fine, albeit with some unavoidable ambiguity, but that should be Songs written in XXXX. And if we don't want multiple release years, there should be a category for Songs first released in XXXX. Maybe we even need a category for Songs first performed in XXXX. And then XXXX Songs can be a container category. But mixing and matching definitions doesn't seem workable. Rlendog (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Song articles for an encyclopedia should take a broader approach and not focus so much on "releases" (that's what Rolling Stone, Spin, etc. are for). Rather, what the sources fix as noteworthy should be determining. For "One After 909", "The song was written no later than spring 1960[2] and perhaps as early as 1957, and is one of the first Lennon–McCartney compositions" is a pretty strong statement. At that point, a (presumably) RS has identified as a song. I seem to recall the Beatles saying they never finished/released it earlier because they thought that it was too dated and didn't reflect their newer style. So, to identify it as a 1969 or 1970 (or even 1963) song would seem to place it out of context. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That's why it should be classified as a "song released in 1970" or a "song first released in 1970." I am not sure what year to put as a song written for "One After 909" because we don't know, and a category for "songs written by 1960" would not really be meaningful. It is hardly a 1963 song, since it was written before that. But it could be classified as a "song recorded in 1963" if we really want to go that far, since that would at least be accurate, although I think trivial since it wasn't released for another 7 years and then in a different version. As for being "broader" than focusing on releases, the first release of a song is a significant and defining milestone, which makes it appropriate for a category, and consistent with the way we categorize other performance arts such as films. Rlendog (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rlendog:. We have to accept that we will never know the year a song was written in many instances, that's why the discussion regarding the wording. Because we can find songs that stop us having a cosy certainty does not negate the category, nor the difference between a song being written, recorded, arranged, released, published, broadcast, performed or in some cases re-written afterwards. I think what you are arguing for is a Category:Year of song release which is separate to the writing process. FWIW, I am opposed to such a category, because most songs would have multiple year of release and inflate the category until it was totally meaningless - especially now as the 60s recordings come out of copyright under the 50 year rule.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Most songs I deal with were first released as singles and having a different Cat:YEAR song (usually if recorded earlier) than Cat:YEAR single(s) has not created any problems. Maybe an additional Category:YEAR song release would be a workable solution for non-single releases with different dates than Cat:YEAR song. This would be supplemental as needed and not to separate the writing, recording, etc. For example, "One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer" is listed as a 1953 song (& single) for the original, but John Lee Hooker's and George Thorogood's later popular renditions have no date categories, because they were only released on albums. This would be like Cat:ARTIST songs, where only noteworthy versions discussed in the article should be added. Also, it would fit posthumous Hendrix releases and Basement Tapes situations. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: That is what I am suggesting Year of initial release. Then there is only one, so your issue would be addressed. If we want to have a Year of song writing, I think that is problematic for the reasons I have mentioned (mostly that it is ambiguous in many instances) but I wouldn't object. But that should be a category specifically identifying the year the song is written. Simply using XXXX Songs for that is too vague, since XXXX song could just as appropriately (more appropriately in my opinion) be linked to the song's release rather than its writing. Or even, in some cases at least, its recording or first performance. But using XXXX Songs for the earliest date we have a reliable source for its "something" will be too messy and unworkable, and rather meaningless, when it will identify the year some songs were written or a year much later than that in some cases when the year it was written is not specifically known and in many cases the year of writing is ambiguous (the year the composer started writing it? the year the composer substantially completed it? the year the composer completed it totally? and in many cases reliable sources will differ even on the dates of those activities. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
So, for example, which year should Laßt Jubeltöne laut erklingen be classified as? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be classified as am 1854 composition, which it already is. If we need alternate dates, we could have songs first performed in 1898. And if we have a publication date, we could use that to classify as the first publication date, which I would view as analogous to the release date for songs from before when recording became common. That would be the most appropriate date for YYYY song. But I don't really think we need a YYYY song category (except as a container) if we have the appropriate categories for the song's potentially defining years (e.g., writing, performing, publishing, release). Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of debate here about what already existed, year of song was always written/first published, Ojorojo's suggested rewording doesn't alter that. I always had a problem with the category <artist> song, because it implies an ownership that does not exist. If you think new/more categories should be created, then you may wish to do so. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the existing wording. Under the existing wording, all the songs on Let It Be are 1970 songs, except for "Get Back" which was released as a single in 1969 and the folk song "Maggie Mae," as they should be. They may also be listed under another year in addition to 1970, but they are all 1970 songs and should be categorized as such, regardless of any other categories. But Ojorojo's wording would seem to prevent any of the songs from being listed as 1970 songs, since they were all recorded in 1969 (and obviously some if not all were written by 1968, with "One After 909" clearly much earlier). And the year of writing may not even be unambiguous - different reliable sources may disagree over whether song X was written in 1969 or 1968. If there is a reliable source for the writing date I don't have a problem with using that date as the year of song in addition to 1970. But that doesn't seem to be the result of Ojorojo's wording. And that is what I have a problem with. If we are going to restrict songs to one year, then we need more specific categories instead of the year of song. Either the year of song needs to accommodate all the relevant dates as it does today or needs to be broken into more specific categories. In other words, we should only restrict the year of song for Let It Be songs to a year other than 1970 if we have a category available that would allow the relevant and defining date of 1970 to be used. Rlendog (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify a couple of points: 1) the existing wording includes "Songs written or first produced in YEAR"[1]; 2) the proposed wording doesn't prevent songs being listed in the year that they were released if that is all that is clearly verifiable; 3) as with any material used in articles, WP:BALANCE, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available", and WP:ONUS apply. There will always be differences of opinion, including when the song was recorded or even released. This should be handled the same as whenever sources conflict. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed wording is that it only permits the release year if it is the earliest year identified by a reliable source compared with other activities such as writing or recording. All the Let It Be songs were recorded in 1969. So the proposed wording would preclude the Let It Be songs from being categorized as 1970 songs. And if there is a Year of Song category (as opposed to splitting among songs written in year X, songs first released in year X, and possibly other milestones), with 2 exceptions these should be categorized as 1970 songs, even if they are also listed with other years. Rlendog (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
How can a song have more than one "year of song?" It might have numerous dates of release, dates as singles, dates of recording, dates of publication etc. Year of song has always meant year of creation, but with the caveat that if that is obscure/unverifiable, then use the earliest known date. All the suggested rewording does is clarify that, it does not change anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It can have more than one year of song because there are more than one defining events that attach to the song. If we must have a one to one relationship, then Year of Song is not appropriate. We then need separate categories for year written, year first released, etc. If we don't have specificity around the milestone being addressed, then songs may have mulitple years. Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No, No, No. You are still conflating release, recording and writing. That's is why both present and proposed wording has the word "or" to avoid this. Create year of release if that is missing. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Year of Song as currently constituted already covers year of release. That is why we have the "or." Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If that was true, anything with a date before the invention of the recording process would have to be removed. It is YEAR of song, not YEARS of song, the present and proposed wording says, "OR" not "AND." We are talking about "THE SONG," not recordings, not performances, not releases, not radio play, not publication, not different arrangement, different artist, not even whistling "the song" in Wichita on a wet Wednesday with RS - we are using these items to establish the year of earliest possible creation because we are talking about the song. This is why many editors systematically remove later "year of song" categorization. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry I started all this. Second, I think Ojorojo's language is an improvement over what is there now. I think I now reluctantly agree with Richhoncho about not placing a song in multiple years. It is the simplest solution. I think it is a little odd in cases where, say, a song was written in, say, 1956, recorded and released with little success in 1958, and covered by another artist in 1960, who has a number one hit with it. People would probably first look for it in category:1960 songs. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Victor Lopes: @Iknow23: @Rlendog: @Ojorojo: @Brianyoumans:. Firstly, Brian, a song which is a hit single in 1960 will still be categorized as a 1960 single irrespective of the year of song categorization. That said, does anybody have further objections to Ojorojo's suggested wording? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No objection. I'm completely satisfied that "will [also] still be categorized as a 1960 single" scenario.—Iknow23 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it could work as long as we also have a category for "Songs first released in XXXX" Rlendog (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rlendog:. So you propose that when a song is released upon its parent album release (say in 2014) it goes into Cat "Songs first released in 2014". Then if this said song is subsequently released as a single in 2015, it then also goes into Cat 2015 singles.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Additional question. If a single is released in the same year as the album (let's say 2014), it goes into Cat "Songs first released in 2014" & Cat 2014 singles. So BOTH Cats are always used whether differing year or not?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Correct. The singles cat would identify any release as a single while the first release cat would identify the first release in whatever form. Just like under the current definition it would often fall under 2014 songs and 2014 singles. 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "Songs first released in XXX" is that useful. Many songs are notable for later releases. Category:YEAR singles is perhaps more definitive, although I might support "YEAR songs releases". —Ojorojo (talk)
I think I understand. Cat:YEAR singles is used for EACH year that a song IS released as a single. You propose a Cat:Year song release to cover notable later releases that are NOT singles. So like with singles, each year of release as a song ONLY will show in a Cat:Year song release.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I am with Ojorojo on this at the moment - rarely is year of commercial availability notable in itself for an individual song on an album. Digging around other projects I note that artworks and plays are categorized by "written or first produced" and not by commercial display (which is what an album release is). Singles are different and nothing in this conversation affects year of single. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding single artwork in song articles[edit]

This discussion is relevant to WikiProject Songs, and interested editors may wish to comment. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)