Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 19

"Chart Watch"

Is [1] a reliable source? It was being used in See You Again (Miley Cyrus song) to cite a platinum RIAA certification based on a sales figure listed, although the RIAA's website itself says the song was never certified gold or platinum. Jc86035 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

First and foremost, the RIAA would be the top authority on certifications, so they would be trumping any other website on that sort of thing. In a general sense, I think I’ve come across this “Chart Watch” before, and the premise seemed to be that it was a guy with an inside scoop on info that was not really publicly known otherwise. So I tend to use it much like websites like “Headline Planet” - not as a reliable source, but rather, as a source of ideas that could be worth looking into, and added of other sources corroborate it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Chart Watch is reliable, the author Paul Grein is a well-known writer who used to write on chart for Billboard - [2], not at all like a Headline Planet. It is hard to tell what the complaint is since the link given did not say anything about a platinum for Start All Over. However, the RIAA site is always used for certification. Other websites that claim certification not in RIAA get ignored because many people used the word platinum loosely. Hzh (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are good credentials in a general sense, but I’m not so sure about using him for sales info. My point was that I’ve seen him provide dubious sales info before. For instance, in the FA A Perfect Circle discography, he’s cited for the sales figures of their first 3 albums. However, these figures cannot be replicated elsewhere, and are now no longer in the source, despite the fact that people in the comments section still refer to him writing about it. That, and the fact that it was used in an FA, makes me think he added and then later removed bogus figures. Which is why I have concerns about using him as a RS for sales figures. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think the figures are dubious? Writers like him have access to Soundscan sales figures (the subscription fee is expensive though, so it is usually the companies that have the subscription). I have read his articles before, and he would often reply to requests for sales information from readers in the comment section. The problem appears to be that there was some reorganization, and a lot of the comments disappeared, you can see that all the comments have been removed in the first link. It is possible that Soundscan requested them removed, I have seen many sites with official Soundscan figures deleted, or it can just be a mess-up in the reorganization. However, in your case, it is likely that it was simply a problem of archiving because it did not archive beyond the first page of the comments. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that Jc86035 has changed the song title, in which case it has nothing to do with Paul Grein, just a random editor misinterpreting sales figure as certification. In this case, the problem lies with editors not understanding the difference between certification and sales - they are not equivalent, and they are not automatic in the case of RIAA (i.e. if you sell one million, it may not be certified platinum). Some countries seem to certify automatically, others like RIAA need a request from the record company. There is therefore a disconnection between certification and sales, for example "My Life Would Suck Without You" sold nearly 3 million but was never certified by the RIAA. Personally I dislike the way certification entry is done because the assumption of certification = sales/shipment misleads many readers, worse now because streams now count toward certification. Hzh (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, as the RIAA certification process isn't particularly intuitive - I believe most, outside of people pretty involved in the music industry, would not be aware that it doesn't happen automatically. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The main reason songs are not automatically certified by the RIAA is that certification requires payment to the RIAA (they do an audit and charge the label for the cost of the audit). What happens is that when record labels get the songs or albums certified, they transfer the cost to the artist. Some artists get upset that they are charged, and stop the music certification. Sometimes there are disputes between labels or artists, or the artists leaving the labels. Many songs and albums have sold more copies than the certifications suggest, but if the labels do not bother to get them certified, then they don't get updated. You get cases like "Counting Stars" that sold over 5 million copies but was only certified Gold [3]. More recently the problem is the addition of streams so that a song selling only 1 million may be certified 3x Platinum. Certification simply doesn't match sales in the US (and around the world now that adding streaming is common). Hzh (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Sergecross and other regular editors to Wikipedia music articles are aware that sales do not result in an automatic certification. Certification also won't happen if the record label isn't affiliated with the RIAA – in the past this mostly affected small and independent record labels who didn't have the money for the necessary audit, or Motown, who didn't sign up with RIAA until the late 1970s... this is why many Motown records were not certified until many years after their release, if at all. It also doesn't help that RIAA seems to be either unaware or refuses to acknowledge that certification levels were halved in 1989, so all certifications before this date on the RIAA website show half of the sales that they actually should do. Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean for that to sound like I needed an explanation on it - I'd sussed this out years back, as I imagine many of the WP:ALBUMS regulars have. I had just meant that I'm not surprised there were arguments breaking out over it, because its confusing to the uninitiated, and its not uncommon to come across similar arguments/misconceptions across other articles I maintain or encounter randomly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Single release dates

Is a random radio station's this website usable as a release date for a single which was released in 2008 (and whose article was promoted to GA in 2009)? (The original release date shown was cited to AllMusic at the time of the GA review.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC) ^{edited 11:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)}

That website - FMQB -isn't so much a "random radio station" as much as it's a trade magazine about the music industry that was founded back in 1968. Looking at their about page, I would think they would be pretty reliable in a general sense. Conversely, while Allmusic is a reliable source in its prose (the artist bio and album review stuff) much of their equivalent to "infoboxes" are not really considered the best source. The boxes have historically had errors in them. So I don't know for sure, but AM isn't the end authority for this sort of thing at least. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The FMQB "About" page only mentions the founder, Kal Rudman (now about 90), and nothing about the current staff or how or where they get their info.[4] AllMusic should only be considered RS for their staff reviews – I've seen many problems with the "box" info, track listings, songwriters, etc. If the artist, management, or record company don't give a release date, Billboard sometimes includes announcements of new releases. Otherwise, if a song first charted on July 1, 2008, it would probably be safe to say that it was released in 2008 (with an explanation in a hidden note). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the FMQB "About Us" is currently a bit lackluster, but just about any publication that started/existed as a print magazine is going to have had to be professional enough to be considered a reliable source, especially one that has existed since the 1960s. It was founded by an industry veteran. They publish national radio series and music/video specials. They have a "client relations department". This is a professional business, not some rando blogger who set up a Wordpress blog a year back. Unless they host user blogs or a wikia or something like that, its a pretty safe bet that they're content is going to be reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Radio industry sources usually give add date, i.e. the date when radio stations are supposed to start adding the song to their playlist. Some sources give the date when the songs are available for sale. They are therefore both correct, depending what you are looking at. Different countries also release the song at different dates. I have no idea what the AllMusic one refers to [5], it also gives a different digital release date - [6], I'm therefore inclined to dismiss the AllMusic one because it is not clear what the first AllMusic date is. Often people cite iTunes or some such, but iTunes can be unreliable, because they may delete an earlier version with an earlier date, and gives a later date for a later version. These day, a track from an album can also chart without it being release as a single, therefore chart date may be an unreliable guide. I'm not sure if this has ever been discussed here, but perhaps this needs to be mentioned in song project guideline. Hzh (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Should album track listings be removed from infobox song?

Consensus during a recent discussion was to remove partial track listings from song infoboxes. Some editors also felt that all track listings (full album track lists) should also be removed (Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples addresses their use). Since the album is linked in the infobox, are these needed? Many have already been replaced with album navboxes outside of the infoboxes. Please indicate Keep or Remove followed by your reasons. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

MTV Adds & Rotation re: Flashdance videos

I'm planning to add information to the pages for the Flashdance soundtrack, "Flashdance... What a Feeling", and "Maniac", and I've been going through old issues of Billboard to confirm that the Irene Cara song was never included on their lists for MTV adds and rotation while the Michael Sembello song was. I came across a source that said that videos for those two songs as well as Donna Summer's "Romeo" and Laura Branigan's "Imagination" from the album were submitted to the cable channel, but only the Sembello and Summer videos were listed as being in rotation in the magazine.

Is it OK for me to indicate that the Cara and Branigan videos were not on these lists (as opposed to just saying the videos never got played)? And, if so, how do I cite several issues of the magazine in which they would have appeared? Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would say no, because that would be WP:SYNTH, adding something that's not explicitly stated in the source, but arrived at by personal deduction, which is to be avoided.

On a wider issue, I'm not sure MTV adds are considered a particularly important piece of information to include in a song article - I realise MTV had only been going a couple of years at this point (and actually played music still), so being included on the MTV playlist was more of a big deal back then. But it still doesn't strike me as particularly noteworthy information to include. Richard3120 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Help request with making articles on number one songs

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to help make articles on missing number one songs. To name a few:

• United States - Template:Billboard Adult Contemporary, Alternative, Mainstream Rock (there's a lot more charts with missing #1s)
• Canada - Template:Canadian Singles Top Singles, Country, and Dance
• United Kingdom - Template:UK Music Charts NME, Fab 40, UK Singles

There are also a lot of templates in the Category:Record chart templates that I haven't checked yet. If anyone is interested in making articles for #1 singles in a specific country/chart please let me know. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Record charts are proliferating. Sometimes with a very narrow focus (apparently "Smooth Jazz Songs" is based on airplay on 14 smooth jazz radio stations), being a number one isn't always an indicator of notability. Maybe articles for many of these haven't been created because they don't meet the second part of the WP:NSONGS criteria: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Eh, sometimes, but that's really more of the mantra about charting in a general sense. Topping a chart is a bit different - getting to number 1 on a chart is generally enough to scrape by the bottom of the WP:GNG at least. At least on the rock music side of things, which is where I've been spending much of the last 2 years on, anyways. Could be different for things like Jazz, but rock isn't exactly at the zenith of its popularity in 2018 either... Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Not necessarily. I think it's more they just haven't been made in general. For example I made I'm Making Believe which charted at #1 on the National Best Selling Retail Records chart, a precursor of the Hot 100 Billboard chart. There are a lot of redlinks which suggests that articles creation haven't been attempted yet. And yes, I've seen articles been redirected even if they've reached #1 i.e Open Your Eyes (Disturbed song) but that's because there was only one source listed. If more sources were found/added to pass GNG then it should be fine. Either way, I think there should be more encouragement of article creation to have them pass the GNG, especially if they hit the big charts. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "Open Your Eyes"[7]] was reverted because it only had one ref. It was a non-article – an infobox, two sentences, and a chart table (maybe a track listing table would have helped). "I'm Making Believe" has the appearance of a "reasonably detailed article", but it doesn't tell much: is it swing or more pop, big band or combo, fast or slow, are the lyrics significant to the movie storyline, how does the Ink Spots version compare, why are the Three Suns, etc., versions important? WP should try to provide encyclopedic content. —Ojorojo (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, your points are valid in a general sense, but I think you’re misunderstanding a bit - no one is particularly advocating the creation of these barebones one sentence type articles. “Open Your Eyes” was meant to be an example of the type of thing to fix. The point would be to develop them into encyclopedic content. It’s not that they’re impossible, it’s more that no one has put the work in to develop them, and the fact that they were chart toppers could be an argument that they’re the sort of thing worthy of more of an effort. While not chart toppers, articles like 3 Libras or Blue (A Perfect Circle song) come to mind as examples - while initially redirected for being a sentence or so and under-sourced, were expanded out of stub status with a bit of research for sources and effort into writing. That would be more of the end goal here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Songs released posthumously

Hello, all! I'm currently working on revising the List of songs recorded by Aaliyah as there are very few refs and it just looks out of sorts for a singer who was iconic in the R&B world. For those who are unfamiliar with the singer: Three studio albums released between 1994 and 2001, and multiple collaborations and guest appearances before her death in 2001. She was only 22 and at the peak of her career. So, I have a couple questions:

1. Quite a few songs have been "leaked" posthumously. Are these to be included in the list, especially if finding a ref for the "release/leak" year and/or the writers is extremely difficult, if not impossible?
2. A few songs have been released in recent years by current R&B artists (like Chris Brown and Drake) in which they took unreleased vocals done by Aaliyah prior to her death and intertwined them into a song that they then recorded. Are these to be included as well?

If you care to take a look, the list is in one of my sandboxes, so you can get sort of an idea of what I'm talking about. Any feedback and advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! — Miss Sarita 20:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

1. I generally include things like this as long as reliable sources cover it/confirm that they're legit. If it's just some random user uploading a track to Youtube or something, then I omit it.
2. I personally find this interesting and part of the overall scope of the article, but I could be wrong on it. I know, for instance, people generally don't add "remixes" on these sorts of lists, because of the fact that vocals weren't so much recorded for the remixes as much as they were generally just taken from the original recording, and as such, the remix wasn't so much "a song recorded by X artist". (I didn't understand this until I reached out to someone directly and had them explain - it initially baffled me.) Anyways, so I'm not sure, the same logic would apply here?

I apologize, I can really only respond from a general editing perspective - I personally have only ever created one of those "List of songs" articles, and it was for a band that has very little in the way of unreleased material... Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I would agree with Sergecross73 here - in the first case we have songs that were completed but unreleased, so if there are sources for them we could legitimately call them "songs by Aaliyah". In the second case we're just talking fragments of vocals, that were never complete songs, and the new melody by Drake or whoever might be entirely different to the original intended music track. So these are more "samples" than anything else, and I don't think they count as Aaliyah's songs. You could maybe mention them in a footnote at the bottom of the article, if you can reliably source them. Richard3120 (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea, having them as a footnote or separate section explaining the difference. But I suppose it could depend on if you plan on taking it to GA/FA too - if you get a stickler of a reviewer, they could object to its inclusion, based on how past lists have been handled. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I do plan on possibly taking it to FL, but I truly feel like these newer "remixed" songs shouldn't be included in the list as I view it as a form of "sampling", even though technically the material recorded by Aaliyah has never been officially released. Regarding the leaked songs, some were extremely difficult to find sources for as the singer's uncle, Barry Hankerson, has really put a lock down on her recordings, released or unreleased. However, I think I've found reliable sources for all the leaked songs that were already on the list prior to me getting a hold of it. I thank the both of you for your advice and will apply your feedback to the list. (Removing the "remixed" songs actually makes everything a bit easier since it can get confusing.) Thank you! — Miss Sarita 15:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Song reassessment

I'd like to request an assessment for the song "Gimme Chocolate!!" and a reassessment for the "Ijime, Dame, Zettai" and "Road of Resistance", having been last assessed four and three years ago, respectively. awu1996 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Chart or Commercial performance

I'm not sure I'm posting this in the right place. But I have come across several articles on Wikipedia which are GA's and FA's, some of them I edited/reviewed or nominated that show these slight difference. I would like to know if one of the aforementioned usages is more correct than the other and if so why OR is exactly the same thing?

Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I had always thought that “Charts” would contain the chart themselves, while the “commercial performance” seemed to consist of prose covering similar content, but also things not covetable by charts alone. (ie The song was on the chart for six weeks, sold x amount, was a musicians fifth song to top the chart, or that a song dethroned another big song from a chart, etc etc.) This is just based around observations though, I could be wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. That seems the most logical way for me as well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Endless Night (song) FAC

Hello everyone. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC about a song from The Lion King (musical) if possible. I hope that everyone has a great rest of their day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Definition of a single

What's the definition of a single? Is it an individual song released to digital media? Is it a song that is released to radio? Something else? This editor is of the opinion that if is sold as a song in the iTunes Store, it's a single, I tend to lean toward a more traditional view. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Both can be classified as a single. There is such thing as a digital single, and iTunes is the best example. I am of the belief that the definition of "single" in the music industry is loosening. Thanks for opening this, though, let's see what everyone says. Mind if I bring attention to WP:ALBUM? They would almost certainly have a relevant opinion. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I know they both can be classified as one, but is it correct to say that it is. Some people also call a van a car, but is that correct use? There has been discussion here before that argues against a liberal use of the term. I'm just gauging if that's still the case or if we've given up on it and there's a new consensus. And, yes, ALBUM might have something to say as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The definition seems to fluctuate in this modern age of digital downloads and music streaming. Personally, I'm of the mindset of just going by what sources commonly say. If reliable sources commonly call it a single, we call it a single. If they don't, just call it a "promotional song" or "a song that was released ahead of an album's release" or something. I think my stance is the most commonly done one, as it's in-line with how Wikipedia functions. But I don't believe there's a hard consensus on it either. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I like that definition, so with iTunes calling it a single, I suppose it's a step. We just need another. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that iTunes calls every 1-2 track release a single. 3+ are an EP and then after some indeterminate point after that (possibly duration?) they drop the labels altogether and presumably just consider it an album. -- I need a name (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I use iTunes as a reference point, but not as a sole-decider either. I prefer to find some WP:RSMUSIC-type sources on the matter too. Many websites dedicate an article to a song upon its first release, and another one when a music video is released (if its not the same day.) Those sources commonly define them as "single" or "random song". Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I can live with that. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguating a song title that already has parentheses

What's the standard practice? Is it "Foo (Bar) (song)" or is it something less awkward? Similarly, would the song be listed at "Foo (disambiguation)" or would it be considered a partial title match? I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere before but I couldn't find it. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a particular song in mind that actually needs this kind of disambiguation? --Izno (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought I found one the other day which prompted this question, but now I can't find it. If they're that rare then it answers my question anyway, I'll just have to improvise if I find one. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure it really happens much, because song names like that are often bizarre and one-of-a-kind names that dont require disambiguation at all. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Con te partirò or Time to Say Goodbye

A discussion regarding which title form is more appropriate at Talk:Con te partirò#Requested move 25 September 2018 may be of interest.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to revisit our "covers" policy

but would first like to read the discussions that took place when the current policy was adopted. There is a ton of archives here, can anyone point me to a good starting place? thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:COVERSONG? The addition of it happened 2011-10-02T09:12:39 (UTC) with a comment of "add cover-versions per talk". So checking the archives I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 8#Cover Versions. The editors involved in that discussion appear to be generally retired. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Richhoncho is certainly still active on Wikipedia. Personally I believe that a cover version should pass WP:GNG and have been discussed in reliable sources itself in order to be included. Richard3120 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I though Richhoncho's was still active and my quick check had the dates for his contributions backward. My mistake. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am active sometimes. I did look for the original discussion but failed to find it - it was a RFC and may have been separate to WPSongs. It was based on that a song should not have two articles for different performances. SONGCOVER was written accordingly and, as far as I am concerned, was widened to include song covers of that performance, many 'additional recordings' were then trimmed (some I did myself). I think it best Einar says what he doesn't like and we can work from there. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Well what I am wanting to do is to change the policy on song articles to read that it is okay to list all versions of the song that are recorded by blue link artists. One of the things that makes a song notable is how many times it gets recorded and who covered it. (Here I am using the word "cover" to mean any recorded version of a song after the original. I know that there are other meanings to that word). I was recently at an article where all the covers except the ones that charted had been removed and so it made the song seem as if it had be recorded four (or whatever) times instead of forty (ditto). This is a lot of useful information for some people that has just been whacked out. So what I don't like is that I can't go to an article and see who covered it, maybe when and where, and/or how many times it has been covered. What about songs that have been recorded 200 times? Well you use five or six columns and do it. Carptrash (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You have to be careful to address the difference between a song that has been covered a few times and one that has been covered many, many times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How so ?@Walter Görlitz: I'd like to be able to include all covers that any editors find to be notable. The song already has an article, so it is notable, I say only include covers by notable artists, so, double notable. The song that I saw and mentioned above (no link, but there could be one) went from being asong with many covers to one with a few and no mention was made of the other versions. Carptrash (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. This talk page is on my watchlist.

Do you mean like the several dozen covers of "Imagine" some of which are listed at https://secondhandsongs.com/work/5917/versions?

Do you mean the hundreds of times "Silent Night", "White Christmas" and other Christmas songs are covered each year? No, we don't need to have a record of this. Even if we restricted those to blue link albums, not just artists, we would have ridiculously long lists of non-notable recordings.

The same goes for the songs the various American Songbooks (Jazz standards). So if you want to narrow your definition, you might succeed in affecting a change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I share your concerns, Carptrash, about the wholesale removal of cover versions based on lack of hit single status. Because, yes, a song's popularity among other recording artists is often testament to its enduring quality and therefore its notability. I've seen mention of a cover removed even though it features a guest appearance by the song's composer, for instance – I would have thought that automatically makes the cover notable and worthy of inclusion. Admittedly, though, it's often the case that a previous editor hasn't supplied a source that highlights the cover's significance.

I'm not sure if the policy wording needs to be changed, as such. My impression (and I've seen some editors citing this when reinstating mention of some of the cover versions) is that the policy is being incorrectly applied: it's being cited as a rationale for removing information that it actually does allow for. I don't mean for every blue-linked artist that has recorded the song – I think that might be over the top – but certainly for a particularly well-known artist. JG66 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A song is notable most often because it becomes a hit and it is that rendition which is notable and for which we create articles. If that song had never been a hit but had been covered on an album by a notable artist we would not create an article. These lists of covers often hang down from the bottom of articles, unsourced, no context and just sit there showing a notable artist sang it on stage, on an album or failed to chart with it. Imagine that with the 2000+ versions of Yesterday! All-in-all they have little or no encyclopaedic value other than for people to include their favourite artist. Allowing long rambling lists means the effective deletion of WP:SONGCOVER.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have very slowly learned when to back out of a discussion and this is one of those. Because my world seems to be different from others. I'd love to see a list of 2,000 versions of "Yesterday." Because that tells me something about the song that nothing else does. Sorry about pinging you Walter, I always appreciate it when someone pings me, I have a lot of articles on my watchlist and sometimes miss things. But then, as noted, we are different. Viva la difference! Carptrash (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point here, yes, it is notable there are 100 or 200 recordings by different artists of a song, but not who those 100/200 artists were, but I rarely see such figures. Whereas, artists who cover 'Silent Night' and 'White Christmas' are those making Xmas albums. Not in the least notable (and already covered by category!). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess the cruz of the matter is whether the existence of a recording of someone elses' version of a song is notable on its own. I've previously seen users say that "X artist covering "Y" song is notable because it was on the Radio 1 Live Lounge. Here is the BBC link to that cover." Whereas I think the policy reads it has to receive coverage beyond its existence e.g. someone reviewing the cover etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 11:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Lists of songs

Hello. I have few issues related to lists of songs. Some issues which come to my mind when I look at featured lists of songs and I think about strict sourcing (I'm not sure how you call it, I mean references). Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Let's assume one version of any language album includes same songs but few of them just has english titles. No one mentions it's the same song just with english title (no information in booklet, no articles about it, information not provided in stores like iTunes etc.). Can I say it's the same song just with english title in notes (WP:OR)? Eventually should I add both as separate entry? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Sometimes it's obvious that it's the same song even it has different or translated title and different instrumental. How to classify it? Should I add both as separate entry or eventually just add information about second song in notes (WP:OR)? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Sometimes it looks obvious that one not common song from album is in Spanish or both languages but sources not mention it (it can be Mexican Spanish. Can it be?). Can I mark this song with something like "Spanish/mixed language" note (WP:OR)? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Should I include official remixes of other artists songs? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Should I include songs written for other artists? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
6. Many featured lists has references directly to albums. Not needed to add additional (easly avaiable) references to AllMusic or atleast Discogs (often includes needed images of albums)? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

    Done Eurohunter (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

7. Are sources like iTunes, Deezer, Junodownload and other online shops reliable for informations about release? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
8. Is there way to obtain digital booklet without purchase? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
9. Should I add unreleased songs (demo songs, live performances) which are not mentioned in any source but are unoficialy avaiable on YouTube? Eurohunter (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

    Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

10. Songs legend. Why some songs are marked both with colour and sign instead one of those? Eurohunter (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
11. If I have no access to some releases should I mark some data as "Unknown" (means not avaiable in the source and probably can't be completed?) or left it empty (means it can be avaiable in the source but author has no access to it?). Eurohunter (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
12. Some lists are sourced with locked status at MetroLyrics (Musixmatch). Locked status makes lyrics has been veryfied by Musixmatch stuff and no more avaiable to edit by any MetroLyrics user? Eurohunter (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

     Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

13. It isn't needed to define songs as "single" (these which was released as single)? Some lists mention it some not. Eurohunter (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
14. "Song" isn't correct term for instrumental music. Should I define which work is song and which is instrumental (sources doesn't mention it)? It's next issue where border is thin. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You can use the professional organisations, ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN and others (not all give the public the right to search repertoire, but those that do are useful). If the songwriters are the same song. One different *may* signify a new lyricist. Here's the link to BMI to give you a start. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this answer reffers to MetroLyrics? I mean MetroLyrics is used to recognise langauge based on text (I guess). I know ASCAP and BMI (I'm going to check SOCAN now. Do you know more?) Here is next issue. There are covers written by discussed artists without "performer" parameter so you need to relalise by title and easiest check it on YouTube. There is many unknown entries which I don't know are these covers, expected new song (?) or something other. The other related issue is If I know know the song from YouTube I will know thats it ASCAP but someone other may not know guessing based only on ASCAP. Simply saying we don't know what ACAP contents before we check it on YouTube (I put here YouTube as one of ways). Eurohunter (talk)

Btw. BMI does not distinguish beetwen songwritter and composer (the same meaning?). Eurohunter (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the horse's mouth, so those I listed are good for me, Metrolyrics is OK when it's an approved lyric (not all are). If you want to find other official sources each country has a 'Performing Rights Organisation' - whether you can search the database is another matter. The lists are for royalty checks so no further details are required or shown. I wouldn't trust YouTube for anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Songs uploaded to YouTube by users are untrustable (unlike official channels) but in this way we know some songs exists (especially live performances, often the problem is how to verify title). Btw. how to prove YouTube channel is official if doesn't have verify badge but is linked on official website of artist/institution (someone could say that website is false too). Eurohunter (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Do you know if I can expect answers here any soon? Probably my expectactions are too big but I kinda don't know what to do now. Eurohunter (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Re-assess "Butter-Fly"

I edited Butter-Fly (Kōji Wada song) and I feel it no longer qualifies as a stub-class article. Is it okay if I can ask for a re-assessment? lullabying (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been assessed by this project. Be WP:BOLD and give it a start class or possibly a C-class rating. Please remove the redlinks while you're there, unless you know the subjects that are linked with the redlinks merit an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I just bumped this to start-class (and also added some citation needed tags). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I would also note, however, that many of the citations are merely links to track listings to prove that various versions of the song exist, and that these aren't reliable sources or prove that the versions pass WP:SONGCOVER. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick response. Oricon is listed as a reliable source by Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, which the article is listed under. Oricon tracks sales rankings of music and entertainment. lullabying (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oricon is certainly reliable, as the provider of Japanese music charts, but unless I've misread the links (I don't speak Japanese), they simply show that the artist has covered the song on their album, which wouldn't necessarily pass WP:SONGCOVER and therefore the cover version isn't notable. Richard3120 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyeditor requested at Kneel Before Me

As a watcher of this page (and admittedly created this page as an IP via Draft), I'm noticing new users attempting to copyedit the page. I was hoping more experienced users would make copyedits though, particularly users in this area of work. Thanks in advance!

I also left some refideas on the article's Talk page if anyone is willing to add to the article as well. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting claim for a single

I reverted an edit earlier today. The claim was made from https://www.facebook.com/skillet/photos/a.10150357061823720/10155669829623720 where the band in question calls a song that was added to a Spotify playlist a "single". No other indication the song was considered as a single. It doesn't appear to have been added to radio. No video. Is this a new frontier or just a way to push fans to boost their listening count at the site? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Why should it not be a single? You think that a single has to be a piece of vinyl? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making any judgment. The question is, what constitutes a single, not what I think it should or should not be. Should this particular song be considered a single? Do you think that a single is any song that is "released" to any environment? Suddenly making a song available for free to fans with a special iTunes download card makes it a single? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

And I wouldn't assume for a moment that you are making a judgement. Don't you agree with what it says at single? Maybe you should ask over there? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question for that article. The question is, as suggested by the article, is that it is "released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats". Since this song was not released for sale, the article doesn't help. If you don't have an opinion to share here, perhaps you could not bother responding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. So the Wikipedia article we have for single is irrelevant to this question. I'm surprised. I would imagine that singles may have existed which have been given away free. So that article may be wrong. I can "be bothered" to share my opinions here, thanks, although of course I might risk "making a judgement". Good luck to any other respondents. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I found a few websites that does state it was a single before the facebook post date of April 11th. The only reliable one I found was by the Gospel Music Association on April 5th. If it's not available to buy separately off of the Unleashed Beyond album, then it could be a promotional single in the sense that "a song may be released as a promotional single even if no commercial version of the single is available to buy". --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can see both sides here. I’m of the mindset of calling it a single if there are reliable sources that call it a single. And it does seem like Skillet would be an authority on Skillet singles. That said, I’m less supportive if there’s literally only one source that supports it. Sometimes, errors are made and people mis-speak. With some of the bands I’ve done extensive, deep-dive work on, Ive had members of the same band contradict themselves on simple facts. It happens. So I don’t believe one statement should be the final say if there’s a reasonable doubt. I’d recommend seeing if you can find any more sources corroborating the statement. If you can, I’d probably support calling it a single. If you can’t, then I’d consider that a “reasonable doubt” and probably wouldn’t call it a single. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MrLinkinPark333 for that source and for your opinion.

Yes, Martinevans123, that article is poorly written and does not answer my question which is why I keep asking the question. For the record, you are sharing your opinions so stop pretending that you have nothing to write on the subject.

Sergecross73, that was my other concern. To date, I have not seen that having a song added to a playlist on Spotify would qualify a song to be a single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The term 'single' is really fairly meaningless these days as it seems to be used for any song that you can download/stream/watch on Youtube. Personally, while the same term is used for both, I see these as largely a different topic to 'real' physical singles (which almost always contain more than one song, so are quite different from single song downloads/streams/views), but while the available sources use the term so loosely, we'll likely never reach a consensus on the issue here. --Michig (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t think the fact that it was on a Spotify playlist would in itself be a convincing argument for being a single. But if the band said something like “Check out our single “Song X” on “Playlist Y”, then the sentence would be the persuasive part, not the playlist placement. Hypothetically speaking - I apologize, I can’t see the exact context here. I’m on mobile and it’s not letting me see the exact situation. It just keeps taking me to the bands main page on Facebook. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There are other sources I originally found calling it a single, but I don't think they're reliable (see New Release Today, The Christian Beat etc. The GMA was the only reliable one I found so far. @Sergecross73: Skillet posted the same message on their Twitter if that helps any. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oooh Walter, so harsh. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need separate articles on Single (music release) (which I would define as traditional physical singles and their digital download equivalents) and Single (individual track) (an individual recording of a song that can be downloaded, streamed, or viewed on Youtube), but with less clunky names, to reflect the fact the same term is used for two different things. The track in question is, in my view, not a single, but it is a single. --Michig (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently has single (music) and promotional single (which is a redirect to promotional recording). Perhaps both could be updated / more clarified else have different articles like you've suggested @Michig: --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If sources could support such an effort, sure, but I’m not sure it’s possible. It seems like one of those eternal Wikipedia problems that stems from the fact that the industry itself hasn’t quite sorted things out. The video game wikiproject has some similar recurring issues - we can’t sort out issues the industry itself can’t sort out yet. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I would support a change since the terminology is clearly changing. No more a-sides and b-sides and now it means that anything released alone would apply. I can accept that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

For many "a single" will always be a piece of vinyl, or even shellac. There might be a case for re-aligning phonograph record, single (music) and digital recording. But that's just my opinion, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Walter - It’s not so much I disagree as much as I’m saying it’s generally very difficult to get the consensus necessary to make such a far-reaching change in these situations where it’s not really actually defined in the industry. You’ll likely get it opened up to all sorts of crazy hot takes on what a single is... Sergecross73 msg me 22:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinions of use of rowspans on song articles?

Asking here as many articles for songs use rowspans and there is some overlap with editors of general music articles. After a long, at times far off-topic and mudslinging discussion at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography, several users are indicating that they are now going to seek modification of WP:ACCESS, a guideline, to make clear that rowspans should not be used in most cases on music articles, because it is the opinion of said editors that music-related WikiProjects have lagged behind the rest of Wikipedia in regards to accessibility for visually-impaired readers. What do you all think of this proposed change to not use rowspans in most cases? I and another editor were called "just as bad as racists and homophobes" by one particularly worked-up user for not agreeing with the removal of rowspans—it's my guess most here would be bestowed such a comparison if they disagree by those who made Sabrina Carpenter discography their battleground for this change. It mostly affects using rowspans for columns not on the left-hand side of a page (mostly the "Album" column on discographies). No need to ping me, just seeking the opinions of those here because it's a more active music WikiProject than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies and even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Ss112 00:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No worse than the sports articles I've seen (Cristiano Ronaldo#Career statistics, but other sports seem to be a bit better). I don't have a screen reader so I can't confirm that the formatting without the rowspans is better or worse (and just because one screen reader claims it's no different doesn't mean all screen readers will make the same claim). I trust that the folks at ACCESS will be able to shed light on this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful not to WP:CANVASS in the future (neutrality of statement) as well as not to spread the same discussion to multiple places. --Izno (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Excuse me? I'm not canvassing. I know what it is; I don't need to be linked or reminded. I am asking for impartial opinions from music editors on if it becomes the case that rowspans are going to become targeted. That is not the same topic or discussion. I want editors to reply here, and I did not ask people to comment at the other talk page—I pointed out the origin only and voiced my opinion of that situation, which I am allowed to do because I'm not canvassing. Sabrina Carpenter's discography talk page is not the centre of all discussions relating to use of rowspans and I am absolutely allowed to ask elsewhere for opinions. Please don't assume, misconstrue my intentions or cast aspersions on what I'm asking here because of what happened elsewhere. Thank you. Ss112 06:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"It is the opinion that the music projects have lagged behind" is not neutral language. It is charged language to call out specific language by a "particularly worked-up user". I could go on with the rest of your comment here. Yes, this is essentially canvassing/WP:FORUMSHOPping and self-admitted deliberately splitting a discussion. Canvassing has little to do with intention judgement--it is entirely about the effects of where and how you talk about a subject elsewhere. As I said earlier, be careful in the future. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Great, except that the user who said "lagged behind" is not the user who insulted me. I started a separate discussion from what is being discussed at that discography. The discussion does not have to be kept there. I don't agree with your characterisation of what I've attempted to ask here, and you're essentially just sidetracking the discussion. Please assume good faith in future. Thanks. Ss112 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Single release date

Is plaympe.com a reliable source for the statement that "Death of a Bachelor" was released to radio in December 2016 (and that this constitutes its release date as a single), and is its release to radio the best date to say it was released as a single? The song's music video was released in December 2015 and the song itself peaked on the Billboard 100 in November 2015. Panic! at the Disco discography did not list it as a single until 7 October 2017, when it was added by BlaccCrab. Multiple editors have changed the infobox release date to 2015. Jc86035 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Cover Songs

I don't want to get into a long discussion about this, so if no one agrees with me, then I'll drop the matter quickly. But I just wanted to mention that I more or less agree with the concerns raised by Carptrash in this discussion from a few months ago. It seems like it would be reasonable enough to include all of the covers recorded by notable artists in a table of some sort, at least with regards to songs that have been copyrighted (a much stricter criteria would, of course, have to be used for songs in the public domain). I recognize that certain songs, like "Yesterday", pose a unique problem, and I wouldn't advocate for mentioning all 2,000+ covers in that particular case. But perhaps a happy medium of some sort could be reached? --Jpcase (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am doing (at the receiving end) eye surgery right now and very little work here but it it nice to see this. If no one shows up saying otherwise let's considerer it a done deal. Carptrash (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Actual informative tables that can be nicely put into hide-able sections are a good place to go with this. I think my primary objection is to great big lists of unannotated blue links. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOSCOLLAPSE. If you intend to present the information in only one place, you should not collapse it. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm grasping at straws for a middle place; generally, I delete those lists from articles about standards on sight. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am at a loss to see how a list of who have recorded a song could pass GNG. So few song articles have anything about the song yet we have a request to add what is in essence, trivia. A single referenced paragraph (written and not a list, box or other contraption) to show the depth and width of recordings made, that a folk song has been recorded as a heavy metal song which additionally shows the importance of the song. Otherwise we finish up with abominations like List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells" which serves no purpose but massage the egos of the editors who have taken ownership of the main article and the list. The proposal would also fail WP:NSONGS --Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And all these covers then end up in the navboxes too... --woodensuperman 12:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the GNG and NSONGS are both meant to be used when determining whether a topic is notable enough for a standalone article; I don't believe that those guidelines are meant to be used when determining whether an individual fact is notable enough to be mentioned within an article. Because I'm not talking about creating separate, standalone articles for each individual cover version of a given song, I'm not sure that either of those guidelines are meant to be applicable here.

What I'm advocating for is creating a table that could list all of the cover versions that notable artists have recorded of a given song and then placing that table within the existing article about the song (as jpgordon mentioned, the table could even be collapsible). And again, I would absolutely want to see stricter standards used when dealing with public domain songs - so I of course wouldn't want to see an article for a song like "Jingle Bells" mention every single notable artist who's ever recorded it. --Jpcase (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. I think that logic applies here too: that a notable artist has recorded a version of a song does not make that version of the song, on its own, notable. My own criterion would be "is the song worthy of mention in the singer's article?" --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, notability isn't inherited, but WP:NOTINHERITED is another guideline about whether or not topics are notable enough to receive their own standalone articles; to my knowledge, NOTINHERITED isn't meant to be used when determining whether a fact is notable enough to be mentioned within an article.

That said, your criterion is reasonable enough - it seems too strict to me, but I can understand where you're coming from. Personally, I just don't feel that readers of Wikipedia will come away with a full understanding a song's legacy, unless an article on a given song presents all of the covers of that song that have been recorded by notable artists. And I don't really see the harm in allowing for all of these covers to be listed in a table - up to a reasonable limit of course. --Jpcase (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Many notable artists release cover albums, I don't see a need to note this on the article for every song covered on those albums. If there is some significance to such recordings and mentioned in a third-party source, sure. Mentioning Luther Vandross' cover of Love the One You're With in that song's article makes sense to me, listing his version in What the World Needs Now Is Love doesn't. The fact that a certain song has been covered numerous times may be worth noting in an article but to list every version by a notable artist simply because they covered it is a bit overkill. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the concept, but not proposed the execution. I'm glad the collapsed option was taken off the table quickly. A table is too heavy for something like this. A simple bullet list would suffice.

I'll offer a few comments to support the idea. AllMusic already attempts to do something like this by linking each song title and when done correctly, the link takes you to a list of versions recorded by the band. Yes, many songs by the Beatles have hundreds of covers, but so do many Leonard Cohen songs (what's "Hallelujah" up to now, not including the 17 listed covers that charted?) Let's look at a concrete example: Point of Know Return by Kansas]. All ten songs are linked. We would not likely do that. The link for the first song, the title track, lists the "Appears On" list that shows that all but one of the covers are by the band. I'm assuming that's not the goal here. Compare that to "Dust in the Wind". Still, no other covers, only compilations. Let's look at a song by the Beatles that isn't "Yesterday", such as "it Be". It doesn't list covers. That's the case with "Hallelujah" as well. And to add an exclamation point: Bruce Springsteen penned "Blinded by the Light" (with the help of a rhyming dictionary), but the version that charted isn't listed at that entry. In all cases, you have to go to the "Also Performed By" tab. By our standards, that's very hidden.

With that in mind, if we were to implement something like this, I would argue that a list of no more than a dozen otherwise notable performers could be added in a covers section, provided that it has an album name and a source (that is more than a database entry of the album). If it's more than a short number of entries all covers could be added to a new article, but that article would be listed as a tab, just like (in my skin) we have Article and Talk at the top. It would require working with someone more technical to address, but it's certainly possible. Heck, we should have the discography and members pages linked like that, but that's a separate challenge. If that can't be done, a new article could be added. Again, the references are key. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Silent Night's 200th anniversary is on December 24th

Autograph (c. 1860) of the carol by Franz Gruber

Hi all. "Silent Night" was first performed on Christmas Eve in 1818, and consequently will appear on the Main page in the "On this day" section on December 24th. As the article is within the scope of this Wikiproject I figured editors here might be interested in improving it before then. There are no major issues with it that I can see, but it's also rather short and I feel certain it could be significantly expanded if interested editors had a go at it. I'd be happy to help out, of course, but as this isn't remotely my field I fear I have very little to contribute. Any takers? (PS. Cross-posting this to WP:CM and WP:SONGS as the most relevant Wikiprojects with recent activity.) --Xover (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(PS. @Xover: Your small lightly-colored text is really hard to see. --Izno (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC))

Discussion about the Latvian charts

Hello, I would like to inform anyone who's interested about this discussion on the legitimacy of the Latvian airplay chart that's being used in several articles. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Four songs in one article

Currently, the "Cocaine Blues" article deals with at least 4 different songs. Please discuss at Talk:Cocaine Blues if you care. —  AjaxSmack  21:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Great American Songbook

There is a discussion at Talk:Great American Songbook#The future of this article as to how to deal with the uncited lists of songwriters, songs, and singers in that article. Please join the discussion if it interests you. Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyediting request on Skibidi

I have placed a copyedit tag on this article that I recently converted from a redirect. Any editor with knowledge about the subject is welcome to provide copyedits of their own. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Genre category for "Nothing Breaks Like a Heart"

Nothing Breaks Like a Heart has the sourced genres "country-disco" and "pop", but Ss112 reverted my addition of Category:Country pop. Please see Talk:Nothing Breaks Like a Heart to help determine whether or not this category is appropriate. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please rate the article

Before
After --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Featuring or not?

iTunes store page says that 2009 "Al final" released by Vale Music is the single of Basshunter featuring Dani Mata but de facto it just is sang by Dani Mata and use instrumental from 2006 Bassunter's "Boten Anna" with different lyrics. I think Basshunter has been mentioned as main artist just for legal reasons. How it should be treated? Eurohunter (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Use it exactly as it is credited on the record - Basshunter featuring Dani Mata. It's not up to us to decide how much input Basshunter really had on the record... that's the name it was released under. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ariana Grande song title stylizations

Its clearly verifiable that the song titles for Ariana Grande's album Sweetener are all lowercased (except God Is a Woman which is sentence cased) on every music service Spotify, iTunes, YouTube. But Woodensuperman has decided (with no sources or consensus to back him up) that these song title stylizations are "absolute nonsense" and has removed them from several articles. Since this is more or less a discussion about the stylization convention of song articles in general and not just these specific articles, I think this is the appropriate venue to further this discussion and get third party opinions. I see no reason to deprive people of this clearly correct information about how these song titles are stylized.--NØ 10:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It has long been common practice on albums and singles track listings to drop a cap on the title, or list the songs all in caps, etc. It is such a common thing to happen, it's not worth mentioning and we certainly don't need to bring attention to such a minor style point in the lede. We don't do that with With the Beatles or "Beetlebum", and we don't need to do that here. You also seem to be ignoring the artwork for these songs which does not even back up your claim File:Ariana Grande No Tears Left to Cry.png, File:God Is a Woman single cover.png. --woodensuperman 10:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I always remove notes like this too. I never understand why people feel compelled to add them. It serves no purpose. Why do we need to explain such simple “stylizations” to the reader? Are we to believe that they’re going to not recognize that “No Tears Left to Cry” and “no tears left to cry” as the same song? People can figure out this sort of thing on their own. Sergecross73 msg me 11:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies but I don't agree with this argument? People can probably also figure out that Black Pink is the same band as BLACKPINK and GetItRight is the same song as "#GETITRIGHT" but that still doesn't sound like a valid reason to remove a stylization from Wikipedia. Its only a disservice to readers imo. Just because people "may know it" doesn't mean Wikipedia should not be providing information about that stylization to people who do not know it. It so obviously makes no positive difference but can easily make a negative one, this argument really sounds like a regurgitated version of WP:IDLI.--NØ 13:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You’ve claimed it’s a “disservice” to omit it, but what exactly is the service provided by adding it? You just literally admitted it “makes no positive difference”. Then what is the significance here? Why is it important for this to be be pointed out to the reader? And please assume good faith - no one has remotely cited liking or not liking it. It’s fine if you disagree, but don’t misrepresent other’s arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW pasting here my edit summary earlier: ""just like all the songs from the album" gives an indication how common this is, furthermore artwork shows it is not exclusively so styled. Removed as non-noteworthy trivia". It's very common for marketing to include typographical tweaks such as reversed letters, upside-down letters, all caps, random caps et cetera ad nauseam. Wikipedia does not document all these weird and wonderful attempts to catch your eye. All lower case is at the banal end of the scale. In this particular case we can judge the importance the creators themselves place upon it by the fact it isn't even consistently applied. What font is it? Is it bold? Superscript? Italic? It doesn't matter, it adds no value to the article, it's trivia. Captainllama (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS:TMSTYLE already settled this issue with it is conventional to give the normal English spelling in the lead section, followed by a note, such as "(stylized as ...). --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it applies in this case, firstly because it's not a trademark, and secondly, it is such common practice to decapitalize songs on tracklistings, etc., it doesn't really count as stylization, so it ends up being trivial and unnecessary clutter. And in a lot of the cases above in question here, it's not even backed up by the artwork for the single, so usage isn't even consistent by the artist (Look at No Tears Left to Cry for example). --woodensuperman 11:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this. It’s acceptable to make notes about certain stylixations, sure. But situations like this are too mundane and self-explanatory to spell out for the reader. Sergecross73 msg me 11:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not mimic non-standard stylization in titles and most other situations per [[MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects]], [[MOS:LCITEMS]] etc. The only real exceptions are proper names (k.d. lang) and In contexts where the case of symbols is significant (mathematic formulas). I have myself corrected film, TV series, and TV episode titles improperly stylized in this way, I don't see why non-stylization wouldn't apply to song titles.— TAnthony^Talk 15:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted, being all in lower-case letters is so common it is unnecessary to point it out. And we would have to apply it to so many song and album articles – apart from With the Beatles mentioned above, it would also apply to Out of Our Heads, Bryter Layter, Like a Virgin, The Last Broadcast, etc. etc... Richard3120 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the [L|l]ang case needs to be revisited. The number of independent reliable sources, especially outside of entertainment journalism, that still do "lang" has dropped markedly over the last decade.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oh christ, we're getting "(stylized in all caps)" too!!! - See these Meghan Trainor songs [8][9][10]. --woodensuperman 16:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• NO. The "stylized as..." thing is something we only occasionally do for actual trademarks, and only "strong marks" at that, where we think there could conceivably be a WP:RECOGNIZABILITY problem ("Am I really at the right article?") We could and should probably remove such comments from about 85% of the places where they've been inserted. The idea of adding them to parrot album/single cover typography is absurd. It's patently unencyclopedic and simply an attempt to WP:GAME around MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and MOS:TM, and WP:OFFICIALNAME, and MOS:TITLES, (etc.) all at once. Anyone familiar with industrial and other genres that play with typography a lot will know how poor an idea this is. You'll find that even most of the music press, despite being more likely than any other genre of nonfiction to try to mimic stylization of band and album names, rarely does so for font effects on song titles to match the liner notes. The first rule at MOS:CAPS is to not do strange things with letter case except in an instance where independent sources do so with near-total uniformity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC); rev'd. 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• I don’t care how the songs are styled by the artist... I do care how they are styled in sources that are independent of the artist. Especially high quality sources. If they lower case, so should we. If they uppercase, so should we. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you think we shouldn't care about the multiple platforms the songs are available (ALL of which, stylized all songs in the album in lowercase, except for R.E.M. and Giaw, as seen on iTunes, Spotify, Tidal and YouTube), we should at least consider what these reliable, notable sites are saying then (as seen here, here, here, here, here, here and here). The fact that a lot of artists do it nowadays, doesn't mean we shouldn't point it out. And if the biggest issue is that in some sources the songs aren't styled as lowercase, perhaps we should add the word "sometimes" before the (stylized as...). — Artmanha (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"The titles for the 15 songs on her album are all written in lower case" is newsworthy now is it? Yawn. Is that the most interesting thing someone could say about the album? I don't expect any reviewer ever wrote that all the tracks on the Manic Street Preachers' The Holy Bible were written in upper case. They probably didn't bother to mention that the Rs are backwards, come to that. Styling in upper or lower or sentence case is such a non-issue when it comes to track listings, it is not worth a mention. --woodensuperman 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

What you say by “it is not worth a mention” you are basically saying ‘’we shouldn’t add it because you don’t want it”. That can be backed by you not having an actual argument, only trying to discredit one of the MANY sources I brought. Just because it’s not important to YOU, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be added. — Artmanha (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that it such a common practice, it's not noteworthy. SMcCandlish spells it out better above. --woodensuperman 15:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, we are not discussing the article titles, that, I believe, is consensual. What I'm saying is, dispite being a "common practice", we SHOULD add it because it's the way the artist chose to display their songs, otherwise it would be just like Ariana's previous works. I don't think we should not add it because some users dislike it, it's not how Wikipedia works. All Wikipedia information can be found somewhere else, so just because it's "such a common practice", it's not an argument to why we shouldn't add. I showed reliable and notable sources (whether one likes the reviewer/journalist or not, it's still notable) explicitly referring the songs as being lowercase, so I don't see a reason why we shouldn't add it. Plus, I brought up a peaceful solution you seem to have completely ignored: we should put (sometimes stylized as...) as a middle ground for the users claiming not all places stylized the songs in lowercase. Please consider is a form of trying to reach consensus. — Artmanha (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Sometimes stylized as" completely missed the point. Only if something is consistently styled in a certain way could there ever be any argument for mentioning it. If sometimes it is styled one way and sometimes another, why bother? To continue my Manic Street Preachers example - have a look at "Revol" (song). Lowercase on the single, uppercase with a backward "R" on the album. So should we really explain all these minor typographical stylings in the lede? --woodensuperman 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If the stylizations dont require any note on the grounds for recognizability, and don’t particularly represent anything, then there’s no point in pointing them out. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

How does one decide what "dont require any note on the grounds for recognizability"? Because the way I see it, it is of extreme importance since it's the way the song is available on the multiple music platforms. And as for the Revol song, I think you are misinterpretating the discussion. We are not discussing the song stylization based on the artwork, otherwise "Imagine" should be stylized in Chinese, as displays the artwork. The Revol song is styled differently only on the artwork. Lastly, so much for trying to reach a consensus amongst fellow wikipedians. — Artmanha (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether something is written in sentence case, lowercase, uppercase, etc, etc, each is instantly recognizable. Therefore we don't need an explanatory note to show that someone is at the correct article, as it is self evident. As far as consensus goes, I'd say we've reached it. --woodensuperman 16:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is not imposing your will. Please be aware of it. I disagree with you, we don't put information on Wikipedia only so readers can distinguish articles. As for your "argument" you try to say that if we didn't add a certain information in an article, why should we put in this other article", which doesn't respect WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Artmanha (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus had already been formed in the preceding discussion. --woodensuperman 16:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You wish. But "the preceding discussion" is still ongoing, in case you didn't notice. And no consensus has been formed, you are just trying to impose your will for the lack of arguments. Please don't do that. — Artmanha (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

See my prior above comments to explain what I mean about not needing to point out things like this for recognizability. There’s no reason to point out that “No Tears” also goes by “no tears”. No one would assume they are different songs. The opposite would be something like noting that Deadmau5 equates to/is pronunced as “Dead Mouse”. That’s worth noting. It’s not a common spelling or readily apparent to the reader outside of fans. That note helps provide recognizability and meaning to the reader. Noting that someone doesn’t capitalize words does nothing like that. That’s the point I was trying to make. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Woodensuperman just removed song title stylisations from a dozen unrelated articles citing this discussion (which hasn’t even concluded) as the reason. [11] Please read up on Wikipedia’s policy about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also, if you do feel that there is consensus, then wait for someone else to make the changes instead of restoring your own edits that have been reverted in the past. Also, at least two users (me and Artmanha) agree that the stylisations shouldn’t be removed so “consensus” hasn’t been reached.—NØ 20:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that’s a bit misleading. Artmanha didn’t comment until today, and the discussion had been pretty stale for the last week. Before today, no one had really supported your stance. So, looking at this discussion before today, it’s be pretty easy to decipher a pretty basic consensus here. Even today, I’d say there’s a weak consensus against inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think (non-admin) people should enforce their favorite consensus in a discussion which is still getting replies, some of which are against removal. Looking at the above discussion I also believe Gonnym and Blueboar supported not removing them. This discussion was literally started about Woodensuperman removing stylizations without any discussion so they should have waited for an uninvolved party to go ahead and restore the changes when an actual "consensus" was reached. 5 people saying the stylizations should be removed, and 4 saying it should be kept doesn't look like a clear consensus to me and the discussion would benefit from continuing for a little longer.--NØ 05:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There was never an active consensus supporting its inclusion either, people like yourself just started adding it in. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No? I wasn't the one who "added it in" (at least in the Ariana articles). They were already present and can be reliably sourced from every music platform the songs are available to stream or purchase on. WS removed them without any discussion and was reverted, so per the WP:BRD cycle they're supposed to wait for this discussion to conclude before they restore it.--NØ 15:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, one could say they were boldly added in the first place, and their removal was the revert step of BRD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone could say that but they would be wrong. Removal of a reliably sourced stylization that had been in the article for months is clearly the bold edit in this instance.--NØ 17:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, "the multiple platforms the songs are available" at are not WP:INDY or RS, they're simply marketing. They're sales databases of products that use the stylization that was supplied by the creators of the works, most of it imported automatically by software, and the rest entered by under-paid data entry people who do not care and who have little oversight. The stylization they provide is primary sourcing; taken as works on their own, things like Amazon are very, very weak tertiary sourcing (no one with expertise or editorial judgement is reviewing what goes into them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't claim those platforms are independent sources though. Primary sources are good enough for song names and stylizations. I'm sure you're not trying to say iTunes and Spotify are not reliable sources for a song stylization because that wouldn't make sense.. They're by far the best sources one could use to see how a song name is written since its the record label itself that uploads songs on there. This is a total straw man argument to the point I was actually making.--NØ 15:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would probably expect it to be mentioned in the track listing section of the album if one or more sources has noted that, though it's not really all that important. I would like to express no opinion on whether it should be included in articles about the songs/singles, although I'm leaning towards also including it in those articles if at least one relevant source considers that worth mentioning. Jc86035 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• I feel like whether or not a song title is all uppercase or all lowercase, or even a certain way shouldn't be made into a big issue like this. The Sweetener songs were doing fine for months, but if it's necessary... I feel that the stylization should be mentioned simply because if that's how the artist/their team wanted it to be, it's worth noting. The titles are ALL lowercased (with the exception of R.E.M, and Giaw) on various digital and streaming sites like iTunes, Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube entries.. the list goes on. And artwork along with whether or not it's in all caps in a lyric video shouldn't be mentioned, those are also stylized in a specific font which may not support lowercase letters. Multiple sources and articles have appreciated the lowercase stylization while others have disregarded it; it's all a matter of choice on behalf of the news/gossip sites. Personally, I dont care if a second-hand article from Rolling Stone mag disregards the styilization, I care about sources that are independent of the artist such as iTunes or Spotify, which are even more credible. I also agree with what one user said about how Black Pink specifically styilizes their name as BLACKPINK and GetItRight is the same song as "#GETITRIGHT". Just because a handful of users do not believe it's important doesn't mean it isn't there. GogoGrande (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can see the point in pointing out the use of a # sign - that actually means something. It signifies a use in social media like Twitter. It gives additional context to the song. But what’s the meaning in writing a song title without any caps? Is that supposed to signify something? If it’s to give some sort of not-readily-apparent meaning to the song title? If so, and sources cover it, then I get it. Add it. But so far I haven’t noticed anyone give such an explanation. But if there’s no actual message to convey to the reader, then there’s no point. But that’s the last I’ll comment on this. There’s more important and constructive things to be dealt with in building this encyclopedia than whether or not we should clutter up intros of pop music articles with info readily apparent to anyone with basic reading comprehension. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• No. If a song title is presented by the artist in all-caps, or all lower-case, or just one initial capital to make sentence case, then it's not much of a "style" as these things go. A more substantial style change, something worthy of notice, would be a non-alphabet character or a graphic image in part of the title. Regarding our standard English choice here being a "disservice" to the artist, MOS:TMSTYLE is clearly telling us that Wikipedia does not worry about what the artist thinks – it says "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• No—unless the styling has semantic importance, it should be ignored on WP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Personnel

Hello. I'm looking for more information about how to add personnel. Questions which come to my mind are should I use "producer" or "production" form and in which case I should create section for personnel (3, 5, 10 persons?) and the last one sorting by role or by name? Eurohunter (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Do what the sources state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I tend to use “production”, but that’s really just because that’s what I anecdotally noticed to be more commonly used years ago. I tend to create a personnel section in every song article I create, but I pretty much exclusively create song articles for rock bands, where’s there always a number of people to list with the band members alone. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

One of my personal examples for handling production credits can be seen at an article I created, Kneel Before Me. Regardless of whether a solo act is known by their stage name, their given name will most likely always be used in production credits. The same applies for any given member of a group or duo act.

On a related question, anyone know of any good sources to use for this kind of stuff? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you're looking for, but one common source of production credits would be AllMusic and the Credits tab that displays for albums. Allreet (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Single Album"

Over at the Albums Project we are having an in-depth discussion on the Korean music industry's use of the term "single album" and the issue is probably relevant for the Songs Project too. Please consider chipping in at this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#"Single Album". Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

August Rigo link please

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.

Little Bit Country/Little Bit Rock and Roll

Given the prominence of the Donnie & Marie classic Little Bit Country/Little Bit Rock and Roll in the current Chevy Silverado ad campaign, I was wondering if anyone could source a credible article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of 45cat at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion of the reliability of 45cat at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § 45cat.com. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Video Megamix

How should I call it? Is "Basshunter remix video" okey? Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is going to be like your discussion above about remix singles... it should go by its official name. But if it isn't an official release , it shouldn't be listed. Richard3120 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's official. I added it to video megamixes. Eurohunter (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

New work

In which section of song article information about new work or should be included? I mean if artist started workong on other single or album. Eurohunter (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There aren't many places within a song article where you could add that information – usually either in a "Background" or "Composition" section. But is it relevant to mention new work within the article? Richard3120 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

How it can be not relevant? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a different song, it has nothing to do with the song in the article. Can you give the example that you are talking about? Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"Remix single"

Is there thing called "remix single"? For example I would call "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" by Basshunter and "Racine carrée: Remixes" by Stromae a "remix singles" because these releases are short enough to not be albums (remix album) or extended plays (there is release called Remix EP: The Spot but I couldn't find the definition) and contain only remixes. Eurohunter (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe we just call it a remix. This is the case with many EDM songs I've made articles from, for example Superhuman (Slander song). The remixes by Gammer and Spag Heddy are not singles in their own right according to sources. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't believe this is any different to the days before the internet, when it was common for singles to be released in various physical formats, which often included one or two 12-inch vinyl singles or CD singles containing various remixes of the main song. In those days they were simply considered remixes of the original single, and are included with the article for the single in question. Unless the remix is released as a distinctly separate single in its own right at a later date (e.g. "Blue Monday 88"), the remixes should be included in the article for the original song... in any case, there's unlikely to be much information about them to create a separate article, just listings of their existence on iTunes and Amazon. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

These examples are simple because "remix singles" were released after the release of "main single". This is a remix of course (to be more detailed, this release contain a remix) but in cases included above there are releases like "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" and "Racine carrée: Remixes" and somehow we need to call this format. I need to know if term "Remix single" is correct for use in discography or album article etc. Eurohunter (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A remix can be released as its own single, but I don't think it makes sense to call something a "remix single". I think we'd just call it a single. Don't see how it's that much different. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I see difference between you release original song as a single or maxi single with remixes and single just with one remix so without original song (in case you released only single with remix not releasing single with original song previously). Eurohunter (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't. Guess that's just my opinion then. Mostly because I've seen examples of groups or artists releasing just the remixed version as a single while the original is an album track. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the difference either. Like I said, artists used to release 12" vinyl and CD singles of remixes, and they didn't include the original version either. But they still counted as a format of the original single. Richard3120 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

For me It would be atleast weird to add "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" beetwen other singles. Eurohunter (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess you're asking what title you should give to that section on Basshunter discography#Singles - ID probably just say "Remixes". Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There is already Basshunter discography#Remixes and it's what "Basshunter Remix" mean. "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" is not remixed by Basshunter and is type of single. Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it is a remix of a Basshunter song, and not a remix by Basshunter. But there's no proof the remix of "Russia privjet" was a single... it's just an official remix of a Basshunter song uploaded to iTunes. Maybe you can call the section "Remixes of other songs"?

It would be kinda missleading because Basshunter songs were remixed by verious artists. For me if something was released to iTunes it's a single. You can publish song but if you relasing it became a single. It's categorised also as single by iTunes, AllMusic etc. It's simplier. Eurohunter (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Eurohunter, English isn't your primary language, is it? I'm not making fun of you or anything, but if I were able to understand the rest of your arguments better, maybe I might see the point you have. But for now, I think it's pretty clear that nobody else is sharing your mindset right now. dannymusiceditor ^oops 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Reading this over, I agree with Danny and Richard as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A lot of singles have had remixes as either the A-side or a B-side, or 12-inch singles which had remixes in addition to the 'normal' mix on the 7-inch single. CD singles with multiple remixes of the same song were also common. If the release is a single, we should just call it a single in my view, it's the individual tracks that are remixes (or not). There may be cases where after a single is released, another single is released with remixes of the same track(s) as the first, i.e. as a different release so not considered a version of the same single (which were often released in multiple formats to get people to buy them more than once and hence get them into the charts), but it would still be just a single in my view, the 'remix' bit would be in the title of the single (or EP, depending on what it was released as). --Michig (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Michig. This is perfect. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Studio album with original songs is a studio album but album with remixes is a remix album. Why single with remix and without original song isn't a remix single? This single contain only a remix. In addition there are many examples of 1-2 tracks singles (original song + remix) and later releases called "remixes" (include original song + 4-5 remixes) and these are singles. Eurohunter (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"...releases called "remixes" and these are singles"... So... call it a "single" then, as suggested above. The term "remix album" is an old one and well understood: however, "remix single" isn't, so it shouldn't be used. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that I clearly said here that singles releases called remixes include original song and remixes. In case above there is only remix without original song. It's not standard single. Eurohunter (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What we're trying to tell you is: yes, it is a standard single, and you are mistaken. It does not matter if the remix by itself is the only thing on the single, the type of release remains the same. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand. Why are you asking if you’re so sure of the answer and unwilling to listen to anyone else? Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I presume he is trying to advocate for a new infobox parameter? dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter:, singles do not always include the original version of the song... there have been many occasions when the single release has only been a remix of the original song. Perhaps the most famous is "Ignition (Remix)" by R. Kelly which was a number-one single around the world, and yet the "original" version doesn't even exist in a complete form. So yes, the Hardlanger Remix is just a single, like any other. Richard3120 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I added it between other singles. Eurohunter (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

2 Hearts

Could some knowledgeable users please offer guidance at Talk:2 Hearts (2007 song)? The article is currently listed at WP:RM and that's how I first came by it, but it quickly became apparent that there is some kind of content dispute over the inclusion of material relating to the song's original version, and that in turn has bearing on the correct disambiguation of the article title. I am not familiar with the song nor the band who originally recorded it and to be honest song articles are not really my forte, perhaps someone here can lend their expertise? Thanks. PC78 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Billboard chart statistics for Christmas songs

Holiday charts seem like a strange hybrid in that they run weekly but for only one month of the year, and many songs reappear there annually at the end of each year even though its not a year-end chart like the ones that Billboard magazine calculates for other genres of music. Since there can be an eleven-month hiatus between appearances on a chart for a specific recording, I'm wondering if the statistics for each year the song charts should be recognized. For example, the song page for "All I Want for Christmas Is You" by Mariah Carey has its peak position at No. 1 on Billboard's Holiday 100 chart, but there's no sense of when this reign began or whether or not it has ended when, in fact, the song has been in the top spot for 33 of the 38 weeks that the chart has been posted since it began in December 2011. I know that, for non-holiday hits, a list of the weekly positions is not allowed, but it seems like indicating the peak position for each Christmas season that the song appears on a specific chart would be reasonable, as has been done for "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree". I'm not finding any listings or discussion of the subject when I search for "Christmas" or "holiday" on pages such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts, Wikipedia:Record charts, or their talk pages, but if I've missed some guidelines somewhere, I would appreciate being directed to them. Otherwise, it seems like a topic that should be addressed. If I were to guess which charts that include Christmas songs are OK to use based on previous Billboard chart discussions, the list would be:

• Hot 100 - obviously OK
• Holiday 100 and Holiday Albums - up for discussion, but I would guess they're OK since they seem like any other genre
• Holiday Digital Song Sales, Holiday Streaming Songs, Holiday Airplay - definitely not acceptable

I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion so that we can maybe find some agreement on how to proceed with this information. Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Billboard is specific to USA. What about other English-speaking countires' pop charts? Also, some countries with heavy use of the English language, and therefore of EN.wikipedia, do not have dominant performance or playback of Christmas songs- e.g., India, Pakistan. Acwilson9 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, Billboard focuses on the United States but has charts for several other nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This listing of annual peak positions has already been done for some Christmas-themed songs - have a look at "Fairytale of New York", for example. My worry is that as these types of songs are now likely to chart every December for the foreseeable future, the articles are going to become unreadable because the length of the chart sections is going to become absurdly long. Richard3120 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fairytale of New York" is a good example of why I introduced the topic the way I did; many do keep coming back each year, and that song makes the top 20 in the UK and Ireland consistently. "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" is more interesting in the sense that its Hot 100 peak positions are currently on the upswing, so the reader can get a sense of its increasing popularity over the course of this decade. Just as the discography for an artist can get long enough to warrant a separate article, this particular phenomenon of recurring Christmas chart success seems reason enough to create a separate article if the section is getting too long. Danaphile (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how a separate article specifically about Christmas time charting would be encyclopedic, and focusing too much on just this aspect within the articles would be WP:UNDUE. You would need to find actual discussion on the topic of the song's recurring and/or increasing popularity, not just chart positions from trade magazines and the services that rank music popularity. For all we know, the upswing for "Rockin' Around the Christmas" has a lot more to do with radio programming and chart methodology changes over the past decade. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm in disagreement with pretty much everything in this last paragraph. Again, a discography for an artist often warrants a separate article, and yet those discography pages are not criticized for placing undue weight on the chart success of the artist and do not require finding an actual discussion on the topic of the artist's string of hit songs or albums like you're saying that this situation would require. Discographies on Wikipedia often are just the compiled chart positions from trade magazines and the services that rank music popularity because those statistics have been accepted as meeting the criteria for notability, but you're saying that the standard is higher for warranting a separate article in the case of Christmas songs that have charted, that a discussion of the topic—by which I'm guessing you mean is some additional source to be cited-- is necessary. I guess I need more than just your word on this.

You talk about the upswing in popularity for "Rockin'" as if radio programming doesn't factor into the chart statistics for any other genre of music and as if any chart methodology changes over the past decade that have somehow allowed that song back onto the charts were obviously a bad idea that needs correcting instead of a way of recognizing the popularity of older songs that people are shelling out 99 cents to buy. If Billboard is changing its chart methodology, I think its a safe bet that they're trying to improve the accuracy of what they're reporting, so I don't understand why you're dismissing these supposed changes as bad.

My original question was inspired by Carey's success on the Holiday 100, a chart that Billboard started in 2011 as a way of registering the popularity of Christmas songs, which have become the format of many radio stations each December. As with any chart Billboard creates, they're trying to reflect the current trends in music, but even after seven years in existence, the Holiday 100 hadn't received mention in the Billboard charts section of Wikipedia:Record charts, even though it "ranks the top holiday hits of all eras using the same methodology as the Hot 100, blending streaming, airplay and sales data." When I started this thread I was trying to get a sense of whether or not the Holiday 100 was going to be acceptable to cite, but now that I see that their methodology is the same as that of the Hot 100, I have to argue that it is. Danaphile (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Remixes

I think there can be recognised two types or remixes. A remix released on the single like "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" (Basshunter Remix) released on "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" (part of single) and remix released as single like "Move Your Body (Alan Walker Remix)" by Alan Walker (standalone release). In first case. Should these releases be included in the discography? If not is list of songs a good place? Eurohunter (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of YouKnowIGotSoul.com on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of YouKnowIGotSoul.com on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § You Know I Got Soul reliability and use?. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Imagine RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There’s an ongoing discussion to see whether “Imagine” should be listed as the second single from Ariana Grande's thank u, next at [12]. Looking for some unbiased people to comment there, because as you can imagine it has only currently been responded to by biased Grande fans.—NØ 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan, that's not a fair characterisation. You don't know I or Aoba47 are Grande fans at all. Yes, Fan4Life is, as they have made it clear that's who their username is referring to, but that's not a fair, relevant or accurate thing to about the two others who have commented. I only commented there because Aoba47 told me about it via email; I wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise. It doesn't make me a "biased Grande fan" if I have been alerted to something. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but please speak neutrally and don't make assumptions when requesting comment from uninvolved editors. This is not a neutral way to describe others who have commented, and it's an assumption to characterise us and dismiss our opinions because nobody else has supported your opinion thus far. I also don't know why Grande fans would not want "Imagine" to not be a full single? I know some fans of artists out there consider anything released from an album a single. (This page is also on my watchlist, so before you suggest it, I am not following you.) Ss112 06:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

::Just for clarity, my statement was not directed at anybody in specific. Stop trying to derail and make another discussion about yourself. What I was trying to convey is that the RfC hasn’t been looked at by completely uninvolved editors yet. You started the “Imagine” article and were one of the first people to list it as a promo single so clearly you’re not uninvolved.—NØ 13:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This was a poorly done WijiProject notification. You didn’t keep it neutral at all. Your complaints of bias clearly indicate that you’re encouraging people to weigh in on a particular side of the dispute. This won’t end well. I strongly recommend archiving and starting over again, without complaining about bias or fans. (This is coming from someone who is neutral and not a fan of the music in question. Not a defensive fan or anything.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I recommend being more neutral in how you invite other editors to review ongoing discussions. You may have meant well, but you should not make assumptions about other editors' motivations and interests. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: I agree with Ss112 that the "as you can imagine it has only currently been responded to by biased Grande fans" part was completely unnecessary. I also disagree with this part "my statement was not directed at anybody in specific" as the statement is clearly about the editors that have already commented (and disagree with your opinion that "Imagine" should be classified as a second single). You have used a similar excuse about Ariana Grande stans/fans in the past for an AfD and I would strongly discourage you from doing so again in the future. Assume good faith for those that participate in the RfC. Also for your comment "What I was trying to convey is that the RfC hasn’t been looked at by completely uninvolved editors yet", I have participated in the RfC and none of my major projects (GA or FA) involve Grande so that is simply not true. If you want to leave a post that draws attention to an RfC, then do just that without putting anyone down. Aoba47 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

More demonstrably incorrect assumptions about me...I literally had nothing to do with the creation of the "Imagine" article. That was Another Believer. I also had nothing to do with listing "Imagine" as a promo single at her discography; I don't know who did that but it was there already when it first saw it. It's right there in the page history of both articles...so I am uninvolved thanks very much. I don't care enough about this RfC to derail it, but if not liking having my motivations assumed and essentially having my opinion dismissed makes me a "derailer", then so be it. Anyone else who saw them being referred to would respond the same. Ss112 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.