Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Songs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

When to use an Infobox; and when to omit

Hi there, I recently completed an edit of Waltzing Matilda by adding {{infobox song}} and made a range of minor changes. My edit was reverted with the comment: "....It is my understanding that tradtional folk ballads like this one are not given infoboxes (see Auld Lang Syne, Wind that shakes the barley...." May I please receive some guidance on whether the claim by this editor is correct? Many thanks Rangasyd (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it many traditional songs, certain writers, (Cole Porter and the Gershwins come to mind) were added to Wikipedia before songboxes were created, which may leave the impression that older songs do not need infoboxes. Where there is no infobox for a song I have been adding needs-infobox-y to the WPSongs project tag. FWIW, a number of traditional songs now have infoboxes and it is my opinion that the removal was wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason why they shouldn't have infoboxes, although obviously for these sort of songs a large proportion of the fields in our song infobox will not apply since those fields don't actually relate to songs at all. --Michig (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
A case-by-case discussion may be either calm or heated. Talk:Government of the Republic of China#RfC about government infobox is an example of calm discussion. However, Talk:Stanley Kubrick#RfC: Should an infobox be added to this page? is full of heat and exhaustion. Careful starting one. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't comment on whether they "are" given infoboxes, but I'll answer a solid yes to whether they "should" be given infoboxes. Since infoboxes are merely summaries of critical information (in particular, significant metadata) about the subject, articles about specific topics (as opposed to articles about general concepts, e.g. Parity of zero or Screened porch) should have infoboxes, since it's easy to ascertain specific types of metadata that will be applicable to most or all articles of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been writing articles on folk songs. I've put infoboxes in some articles (because a bot suggested I should), but many of the fields don't apply. I've taken to putting index numbers (Child, Roud and Laws) in "misc" as the software won't let me modify other sections. Joe Fogey (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Joe Fogey, this might be an alternative. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we stop classifying "songs by artist" categories by genre?

I'm not sure where else to discuss this, so I'll just post here and see what happens. Very often, when viewing a category for songs by a particular artist, you will see genre categories. For example, Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:Electropop songs. But not all of the songs in the Lady Gaga category are electropop songs. Certainly "The Lady Is a Tramp" isn't electropop.

This seems to be very common, though, associating songs by an artist with a one or more specific genres (other examples: Category:Amy Winehouse songs, Category:Rihanna songs). We hold a strict standard to articles about individual songs, placing genres in Template:Infobox single/Template:Infobox song only when a reliable source confirms a specific genre or genres, yet we don't hold this standard to categories. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Not all songs by an artist are of a particular genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Same with albums, e.g. we currently have Bob Marley and the Wailers albums categorized in Reggae albums by Jamaican artists, even though they're not all reggae albums. A lot of artists have worked in multiple genres. --Michig (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:Petscan can perform these kinds of intersections for the user interested in reggae by Bob Marley. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
In some cases, the current scheme is nearly useless. For example, all Category:Led Zeppelin songs are further categorized as British heavy metal and British folk, plus a couple others. Looking through Category:British folk songs, you find Category:Led Zeppelin songs, but since that category includes all LZ songs without further qualification/categorization, it is not apparent which really are British folk songs (except for one song with a separate category). Each song must be checked individually to find out (a brief search only showed one more with "English folk music" in the infobox). So, the current categorization only serves to indicate that one or more of Zeppelin's songs are British folk, but not which one(s). This hardly seems to meet the goal of categorization, i.e., to "browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those [essential or defining] characteristics." ((WP:CAT).—Ojorojo (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am glad to see some agreement here. I will say, though, if we change the way we categorize by genre, there will be many, many categories needing updating. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Any suggestions for how to move forward or get additional input from more editors? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since it would represent a substantial change, it should be taken up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or such. Koavf often works with music categories. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above: categorization of categories does not have to be as specific as by article. Imagine looking in Category:Reggae albums by Jamaican artists and not seeing the Bob Marley category! Some artists almost exclusively work in one idiom and then have a one-off album in another genre (e.g. electronic music artist Moby with the hardcore punk Animal Rights). In those cases, categorize the artist by the most typical genre or subgenre and the specific album by a more specific and accurate category. Imagine the chaos of having to sort through every single article of over 200,000 in over 18,000 artist categories and taking out individual articles... This is a huge scope of work for virtually no benefit and it would end up flooding certain categories with hundreds of articles instead of having a few subcategories. E.g. Isn't it better if Category:Hard rock albums by Australian artists has Category:AC/DC albums in it rather than every individual AC/DC album? That's the entire purpose of this category structure in the first place. I have to admit, the very idea of taking Category:Led Zeppelin albums out of Category:Hard rock albums by English artists just because Led Zeppelin III is a more mellow folk-rock album is ridiculous to me. I don't think you guys are thinking this through nor do you understand that the guidelines for categorizing an article are different and more stringent than for a category and for good reason. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, this problem is only compounded by the song categories: it's really easy to have one song not in the genre that you're most associated with--that is going to happen pretty frequently. Again, think of how ludicrous it would be to take Category:Lady Gaga songs out of Category:Electropop songs which is a genre that she's definitely known for and which she has helped define over the past decade when she has one or two jazz standards that she's covered in duets with Tony Bennett. It's ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Listing the Wailers ska albums as reggae albums would be ridiculous. The reggae albums can be individually categorised as reggae albums - problem solved. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

As a starting point, wouldn't it be better to clarify WP:SONGS#Categories to reflect something like:

"Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category:<Artist name> songs" has not been added to this genre category.

Ojorojo (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Definitely. Some language like that is necessary. Someone like Miles Davis worked across virtually every genre of jazz, so his albums can only be subcategorized at the individual article level. Other artists, like Motorhead are not only rock bands but heavy metal and hard rock exclusively and even amongst heavy metal, part of the NWOBHM sub-sub-genre. And that kind of scheme works for 99% of artists. Others sometimes work in two fairly distinct genres--e.g. Steve Martin has bluegrass and comedy albums. Very few are really appropriate to categorize across more than two or three genres so the "problem" of having a single song or an experimental album that deviates from that is really a non-issue and what is being proposed above is a massive pain both to implement and for others to navigate when looking thru our scheme. It's in no way controversial to characterize Moby as an electronic music artist even if sometimes he works in a narrow sub-genre like ambient or has an occasional punk rock album. In those cases, just categorize that particular article differently. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The larger issue still needs some consideration, but meanwhile some of the current problems can be remedied. Propose to change WP:SONG#Categories as follows:

Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable: ...

5. Other than Category:Songs by artist, "Category:<Artist name> songs" should be placed into at least two other subcategories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by country and one or more subcategories of Category:Songs by genre, but only if the genre describes a majority of their songs.

Notes: ...

4. If the song is in a genre in which the artist has very few songs, the song article may be added to a specific Category:Songs by genre when the artist's overall "Category:<Artist name> songs" has not been added to this genre category.

If there are no objections, I'll add this. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My preference would be that 'by artist' categories are not put into genre categories at all unless the artist has only worked in one genre (or if the only ones we're likely to have articles on are in the same genre). Anything else is too problematic. There are Jamaican artists that recorded ska, rocksteady, reggae, and soul. There are artists that did folk and rock - putting all their recordings into both folk and rock categories would mean a lot of them would be in a wrong category. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Accuracy should be important – if a reader wants to read articles about electropop songs, they should not have to sift through dozens of artist's songs that may have no connection. Using your example (folk and rock), which category would you use (if any)? Or the Led Zeppelin example? Even "Rock" may not describe songs like "Going to California". Although Koavf sees a problem, in many cases individual song/album categorization may be the only way to ensure accuracy. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a can of worms, really, and we have constant problems with editors adding and changing genres on articles. If an artist recorded in both folk and rock, I wouldn't put all their recordings into either category. Led Zeppelin - I would say rock is best, but if it comes down to opinions, this will vary among editors. The broader the genre categories we use the less problems we'll have. I'm tempted to suggest we go with what sources say, but then we get genres added by determined users solely on the basis of one mention in one source, and we have a ridiculous number of album and song articles with 3 or more genres listed. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
+1 "Although Koavf sees a problem, in many cases individual song/album categorization may be the only way to ensure accuracy." I agree, I'd rather see entries categorized more accurately, not based on convenience. I've seen way too many entries miscategorized by genre. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this change, as Led Zeppelin is NOT limited to hard rock, but is also known for blues rock, folk rock and heavy metal (see main article, in the infobox). Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Many artists are "known" for different styles of music, but adding all their songs to several categories in which they have few serves no purpose. Beatles songs are only included in British rock songs and British pop songs, although many of their songs are in different styles. Those particular songs may be categorized individually. As pointed out above, British folk music arguably only describes 2–3% of LZ's 94 songs with articles. It seems 51% is a reasonable threshold. My sampling only showed hard rock with a majority. It would be interesting to see the numbers for other categories. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Where did the "2–3% of LZ's 94 songs" and "51%" come from ? Reliable sources explicitly called Led Zeppelin either blues rock, heavy metal or folk rock. I'm not talking about specific songs here, but main genres. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Better to categorise the individual songs under what reliable sources agree on, rather than listing them all under three genre categories. I really don't see a problem categorising individual articles rather than trying to lump them all under multiple categories by artist. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
(r to Synth) Categories have a function, which isn't the same as describing an artist's body of work. By looking at Category:British folk songs, a reader should be find a list of WP articles about British folk songs. If the list (the category) also has a lot of hard rock, heavy metal, etc. songs, it is useless – it's just another list of songs. I went through the 94 Led Zeppelin song articles and found two that had something like British folk listed as a genre in the infobox, or roughly 2–3%. If you look back through this discussion, you'll see that, as a starting point, that Category:ARTIST songs (their entire body of work) should not be placed in a Category:GENRE songs, unless that genre describes a majority (more than 50%) of their songs. What is wrong with adding individual LZ songs that maybe folk, folk rock, metal, etc., to those categories directly? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, and I share Another Believer's sentiments about this system of categorization. I've always seen edits like this to be completely ridiculous. One idea that came to mind is to follow the model of Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups. As we see with Category:Maroon 5, it is categorized under Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musical groups, but not Category:American musical groups—that's left for the categorization of the article. We can apply the same principle, for example, to Category:Lady Gaga songs: categorized under Category:Wikipedia categories named after electropop songs (or something to that effect, preferably less ugly and more succinct), but not Category:Electropop songs, which will be left to the articles. Thoughts? xplicit 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Need article for "My Silent Love"

The song "My Silent Love" has no article -- is there someone who could create one? (It's a bit beyond my current ability.)

Some seed info:

Music by Dana Suesse, lyrics by Edward Heyman.

Used in the following movies:

 The Uninvited (1944); played on BBC radio when Roderick spends his first night at Windward.
 A Place in the Sun (1951); played at the party where George meets Angela.
 Sabrina (1954); played at the outdoor party.

There are a few YouTube postings; unfortunately the version with Bonnie Poe (as Betty Boop) and Bela Lugosi has been pulled.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Promotional singles"

When it should be used? When the artist release a single on itunes and not to radio, or when they release album tracks ahead of the album release? I don't get the concept, and the media never uses that phrase. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The only situation where it really makes sense is when physical singles are produced specifically to be send to radio stations, etc. for promotion (often to promote albums). --Michig (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Promotional singles can be songs released from an album's preorder or songs available for retail that don't make the album but were released for the album's promotional run. I don't agree with merging song into single because it's going to take forever for people to stop being confused about it and doesn't really do anything beneficial for articles. BlaccCrab (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Creation of redirects

The table below is a list of redirects pointing to X (Kylie Minogue album). Those marked article were created as articles, but are now redirects. The rest were created by the same person, on the same day, as redirects. A few other editors who are creating wholesale redirects in this manner. I have noticed creation of alternative spelling and variants (often xxx, xxx (song) and xxx (artist song), creating a single redirect for each song on the album (including unreleased and rumoured songs), and some who are creating every conceivable redirect possible, i.e. Nu-di-ty above. There are two issues here, namely :-

  1. Should redirects be created on purpose? Should WP Songs and appropriate projects have guidelines on the matter?
  2. Do duplicate redirects from alternatives constitute clutter and therefore unhelpful?

--Richhoncho(talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • In my view we should only have redirects for likely search terms that are covered in the album articles, e.g. names of singles taken from an album, songs from the album that have gone beyond being ordinary album tracks for some other reason, or from song articles that have been merged to the album, where we have to keep them to preserve history. Redirects with disambiguated titles as many of those above have should not be created as they are implausible search terms, nor should we have redirects from titles of unremarkable album tracks, or mis-spellings. --Michig (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I believe there was already a consensus somewhere that basically, redirects for every song of an album shouldn't be created automatically like that. I think they're only supposed to be created if there's a particular reason you'd think they'd be searched out. (Being a single, charting, appearing on a movie soundtrack or television show, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lists of top 10 singles (UK)

I have been working on the lists for top 10 UK singles of each year, expanding them into comprehensive articles. I have included a section with a list of all artists making their top 10 debut in each year, either as lead or featured artist. Solo artists with debut singles who have had previous success with bands are not included in the table but are noted separately.

The issue I have is on charity singles like those by The X Factor finalists. For example Joe McElderry reached number one with the X Factor finalists before his own debut single The Climb, so he has two entries in List of UK top 10 singles in 2009. This was also the chart debut for several other acts (Jedward and Olly Murs) so when they made their solo debut I have not included them again in the table and have put them in the notes section instead.

Because of this I have had to include the other finalists from each year in the table (e.g. Wagner, 2 Shoes and Johnny Robinson), even though they are not credited individually. Is this the right approach or should the act simply be "The X Factor Finalists..." with Joe McElderry/Alexandra Burke/Little Mix/Matt Cardle etc. having their official debut put down as their first solo release. The charity singles are included on their discographies.

Any feedback welcome and hope this makes sense, look at List of UK top 10 singles in 2009#Chart debuts to see what I mean.

Redirect Name Reason for creation Date Created
(White Diamond (song) article 20 December 2006
White Diamond (Kylie Minogue song) article 10 January 2007
2 Hearts (Album) article 14 September 2007
Heart Beat Rock article 11 November 2007
Cosmic (song) article 28 February 2008
Sensitized(Kylie Minogue Song) article 08 March 2010
Like a Drug (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Sensitized (song) redirect 13 January 2017
Sensitized (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Heart Beat Rock (song) redirect 13 January 2017
Heart Beat Rock (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
No More Rain redirect 13 January 2017
No More Rain (song) redirect 13 January 2017
No More Rain (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Stars (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Nu-di-ty redirect 13 January 2017
Nu-Di-Ty redirect 13 January 2017
Nu-Di-Ty (song) redirect 13 January 2017
Nu-Di-Ty (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Nu-di-ty (song) redirect 13 January 2017
Nu-di-ty (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Cosmic (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Rippin' Up the Disco redirect 13 January 2017
Rippin' Up the Disco (song) redirect 13 January 2017
Rippin' Up the Disco (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Rippin' Up The Disco redirect 13 January 2017
Rippin Up the Disco redirect 13 January 2017
Magnetic Electric redirect 13 January 2017
Magnetic Electric (song) redirect 13 January 2017
Magnetic Electric (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
King or Queen (song) redirect 13 January 2017
King or Queen (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
I Don't Know What It Is (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Carried Away (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Cherry Bomb (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Do It Again (Kylie Minogue song) redirect 13 January 2017
Artist Number of top 10s First entry Chart position Other entries
Lady Gaga 4 "Just Dance" 1 "Poker Face" (1), "Paparazzi" (4), "Bad Romance" (1)
Colby O'Donis 1 "Just Dance" 1
Kevin Rudolf 1 "Let It Rock" 5
Kid Cudi 1 "Day 'n' Nite" 2
Crookers 1 "Day 'n' Nite" 2
Tinchy Stryder 4 "Take Me Back" 3 "I Got You", "Number 1" (1), "Never Leave You" (1)
Shontelle 1 "T-Shirt" 6
Taylor Swift 1 "Love Story" 2
Kesha 2 "Right Round" 1 "TiK ToK" (4)
Vanessa Jenkins 1 "Islands in the Stream" 1
Bryn West 1 "Islands in the Stream" 1
Noisettes 1 "Don't Upset the Rhythm (Go Baby Go)" 2
A.R. Rahman 1 "Jai Ho! (You Are My Destiny)" 3
Metro Station 1 "Shake It" 6
La Roux 2 "In for the Kill" 2 "Bulletproof" (1)
N-Dubz 3 "Number 1" 1 "I Got Soul", "I Need You" (5)
Chipmunk 5 "Tiny Dancer (Hold Me Closer)" 3 "Diamond Rings" (6), "I Got Soul" (10), "Oopsy Daisy" (1), "Look for Me" (7)
Alexander Rybak 1 "Fairytale" 10
Agnes 1 "Release Me" 3
Veronicas, TheThe Veronicas 1 "Untouched" 8
Pixie Lott 3 "Mama Do (Uh Oh, Uh Oh)" 1 "Boys and Girls" (1), "I Got Soul" (10)
Emeli Sandé 1 "Diamond Rings" 6
Pitbull 2 "I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho)" 4 "Hotel Room Service" (9)
Mr Hudson 1 "Supernova" 2
Ian Carey Project, TheThe Ian Carey Project 1 "Get Shaky" 9
Little Boots 1 "Remedy" 6
Esmée Denters 1 "Outta Here" 7
Mini Viva 1 "Left My Heart in Tokyo" 7
Temper Trap, TheThe Temper Trap 1 "Sweet Disposition" 6
Dayo Olatunji 1 "Oopsy Daisy" 1
Michael Bublé 1 "Haven't Met You Yet" 5
Young Soul Rebels 1 "I Got Soul" 10
Bashy 1 "I Got Soul" 10
Domino Go 1 "I Got Soul" 10
Egypt 1 "I Got Soul" 10
Frankmusik 1 "I Got Soul" 10
Kid British 1 "I Got Soul" 10
London Community Gospel Choir 1 "I Got Soul" 10
McLean 1 "I Got Soul" 10
Mpho 1 "I Got Soul" 10
VV Brown 1 "I Got Soul" 10
Chase & Status 1 "End Credits" 9
Plan B 1 "End Credits" 9
X Factor Finalists 2009, TheThe X Factor Finalists 2009 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Danyl Johnson 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Jamie Archer 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Jedward 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Joe McElderry 2 "You Are Not Alone" 1 "The Climb" (1)
Kandy Rain 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Lloyd Daniels 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Lucie Jones 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Miss Frank 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Olly Murs 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Rachel Adedeji 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Rikki Loney 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Stacey Solomon 1 "You Are Not Alone" 1
Jason Derulo 1 "Whatcha Say" 3
Peter Kay's Animated All Star Band 1 "The Official BBC Children in Need Medley" 1
Susan Boyle 1 "Wild Horses" 9
Chuckie 1 "Let the Bass Kick in Miami Bitch" 9
LMFAO 1 "Let the Bass Kick in Miami Bitch" 9
Talay Riley 1 "Look for Me" 7
3OH!3 1 "Starstrukk" 3

03md 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. There are many redirects and some link to disambiguation pages. There are no sources. Those are my only concerns. As a suggestion, it would have been better to have placed this on a sandbox page and pointed us to it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem. This is still a work in progress and the articles for other years (especially 2002, which I have put up for peer review), are well referenced. What are your thoughts on my question re. X Factor contestants/artists on charity singles being credited individually? 03md 15:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"List of songs by X musician" criteria

Is there any sort of objective/specific criteria as to when its appropriate to have these "List of songs by musician x" type articles? I see them pop up at AFD now and again, and I never quite know how address them. I mean, there seems to be a loose agreement that something like List of Beatles songs is acceptable, and something like a "List of Trapt songs" would probably be unnecessary, because there's comparatively few notable songs throughout the band's career. (Looks like about 7 out of 70 - roughly 10%.) But most musicians probably fall somewhere in between the extreme and obvious cases.

Are there any criteria? Should we decide on some? I think its a good idea. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

LISTN already addresses this, notability is met by significant coverage of the list's members "as a group or set". James (talk/contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • These are just my thoughts about it, and I am still very inexperienced with Wikipedia so take my comments with a huge grain of salt. Whenever I look at these lists, I would look more at the size of the artist's or band's output rather than ranking or counting how many notable songs or singles they have released. For instance, I recently put together a featured list for that of List of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano. I do not believe any of her individual songs or singles would pass Wikipedia's notability standards (some of them charted, but none of them received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources), but her career received coverage and she recorded enough material (roughly four albums worth of material) to put together a list. I would contrast this case with List of songs recorded by Nicola Roberts, which I nominated for AfD a while back with the verdict being "delete". In that case, the artist only put out one album, and a handful of b-sides, so there was no value for making this type of list for her as a reader would only need to refer to the article about her album to see a bulk of the songs that she recorded. In short, I would suggest looking at the total output of an artist's work, and if they released multiple projects or albums, then they would most likely be qualified to have this kind of list. I would also imagine ideally the lead for the list would used to discuss the artist's genre and sound throughout their career, as I did in my Alyssa Milano example. Again, this is just my two cents so feel free to disregard it. I look forward to hearing people's feedback on this, especially since I have created this type of list in the past. Thank you for bringing this up for discussion, as I feel this will be a beneficial point to talk about and get some sort of consensus. And thank you for pointing to that James. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Aoba47 Yes, this is closer in line to my thoughts on it. Perhaps a certain number of notable albums? Or notable songs? Or ratio of notable songs to notable albums? Even if we just had some bare minimums or something. So we could say "Look, this artist has 2 albums, 25 songs, and only 3 notable singles with articles. It shouldn't have a list because we require a minimum of 4 albums to warrant a list. Or 50 songs. Or 7 notable singles. Or a ratio of 20% of the singles being notable. Just brainstorming, but something like that. Much like some of the points in WP:NBANDS or how we have the rule that associate acts in infoboxes require 2 members in common
  • Thank you for your response. I am honestly not sure exactly how to best approach this. I think some sort of standard or minimum would be an excellent idea, but I would leave that to the more experienced Wikipedia users. I greatly appreciate you for taking the time to respond to this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • James Allison, Yes, I'm aware of LISTN, but I don't think that's quite helpful in these particular instances. I mean, the cross-section here is "musicians" and "their songs". What notable musical artist isn't going to have sourcing for such a scope? Collecting a few simple track-by-track album review from an RS would be able to source a list in that case. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we should set the bar very high for this type of list, generally, but the qualifications are going to differ depending on whether an artist is active. For instance, someone who's currently enjoying huge commercial success might well merit a "Songs by" list after three albums and accompanying singles, or maybe just two albums. Yet a band/artist from decades back that had a long, long recording career, with some commercial success along the way, may well not – otherwise, we end up with columns filled with unlinked songs that appeared on minor releases long after the act had a few hits early in their career (reflecting the sort of song-notability percentage rate you're pointing to, Serge). I agree that ideally there should be some sort of criteria laid out, but it's tough to pinpoint what. I imagine there's always going to be a need for discussion about each list more often than not.
  • The only "List of songs by" I've looked at in any detail is that one for the Beatles, which is absolutely riddled with problems. [There, info in the Songwriter(s) column enters into controversial territory because we're stating as fact that Beatle A wrote a song alone, or "with" Beatles B, when reliable sources (not to mention the band members) have failed to agree on such points; the Notes column also seems to be an invitation to add waffle.] So, no doubt unduly influenced by the problems there, my concern is that these lists can become magnets for trivia, original research, and undue weight. JG66 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should Infobox song and Infobox album be merged?

Closed as withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

In the last RFC, which ended with a consensus to merge Infobox song and Infobox single, there was discussion about creating a merged album/track/single infobox ({{Infobox sound recording}}) as a contrast to {{Infobox musical composition}}, which is used for traditional songs and classical pieces.

With regards to the separation of Infobox album and Infobox song, two significant points were raised:

  • Singles are not defined as "single songs" — they may consist of multiple tracks, just like an album or EP.[1]
  • Both infoboxes share most parameters, just like {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}: Name, Cover, Caption, Artist, Released, Recorded, Studio, Venue, Genre, Length, Label, and Producer.

Note: This RfC is purely for consolidating the two templates, not removing one in favor of the other. If the elements that are exclusive to Albums (just three or four parameters) were added to the Songs infobox, there would be no perceptible changes, as in, readers wouldn't notice if Album was redirected to Songs. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jones, M. (2012). The Music Industries: From Conception to Consumption. ISBN 978-1-137-02706-1. As of [2011] a single has become defined as 'a Record containing not more than 4 tracks' where a 'track' is defined as 'a Recording which reproduces 1 Title whose playing time is not less than 2½ minutes when played at its correct speed 

Survey

Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg
Placeholder for fair use file
Song by The Beatles
Released 3 December 1965 (1965-12-03)
Recorded 12 and 21 October 1965,
EMI Studios, London
Genre
Length 2:05
Label Parlophone
Producer George Martin
Audio sample
Placeholder for fair use file
  • Support — No reason to have two identical templates that share almost all of the same parameters. The attached infobox demonstrates how similar they are.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – most parameters are identical. If necessary |type=single or |type=song (or similar) could disable certain parameters. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Album titles are in italics (automatically done by the template), and song titles are not. wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Hmm. Are album articles still supposed to have italic titles? That doesn't seem to be working. There have been some recent changes to the template. wbm1058 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Wbm1058: Now fixed, sorry about that. I assume this could be done automatically based on the type of composition, but this would be slightly more inefficient. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose They only share 16 parameters. (editor's note: they will share 21 out of 35 after the song/single merge --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC))
Parameters that are the same (capitalization excepted):
  1. alt
  2. artist
  3. caption
  4. cover
  5. genre
  6. label
  7. language
  8. length
  9. misc
  10. name
  11. producer
  12. recorded
  13. released
  14. studio
  15. type
  16. venue
Unique to infobox album (editor's note: I've crossed out parameters that are going to be merged to {{Infobox song}} anyway --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC))
  1. border
  2. chronology
  3. compiler
  4. director
  5. italic_title
  6. last_album
  7. longtype
  8. next_album
  9. this_album
Unique to infobox song
  1. album
  2. composer
  3. english_title
  4. ep
  5. format
  6. iswc
  7. lyricist
  8. published
  9. writer
  10. written
While it's easy enough to merge them, the more complicated we make the template, the likely it will be for editors to use them correctly. When we add the unique fields for infobox single in, it would become even more problematic. Editors usually get group and individual performer fields wrong in infobox musical artist, this would become truly problematic. Convince me that it won't and I'll change my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Still not convinced that parameters not appropriate to one context won't be misused in that context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't, but what sort of rigorous testing of the parameters will exist? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know what the exact code is, but: "If Type=Album, ignore Writer/Published/Lyricist". That's just one example. Another would be "If Type=Song, ignore Compiler/Director/Format".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, "Editors usually get group and individual performer fields wrong in infobox musical artist" ... In 10 years of using Wikipedia, I've NEVER seen this occur. If the average editor was as incompetent as you seem to believe they are, then it'd be a wonder how we got to using infoboxes at all. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Walter. I supported the single/song merge because they're so similar, especially with the lines blurring between the two in the modern era of music. Not the case with albums. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Uh, not sure you're getting my point here. I'm saying, in this age, it's harder and harder to determine whether or not a song is a single, promotional single, or just a random song revealed to promote an album. Are you insinuating it getting hard to identify whether or not a body of work is a song or an album? Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: I'm not referring to songs. If you look directly below this text, you'll see a common example where the difference between a single (not a song) and an album (EP) can be tenuous, so much so that it makes no sense why we have different templates for them. I'd like you to answer the question I asked below rather than shrug it off: are the differences between Grass (a single of three tracks) and Peacebone (an EP of four tracks) so significant that they require different types of infoboxes? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really care what you're talking about, We're talking about my stance, which explains why I supported the song/single merge, and oppose the merger to the albums one. There's a greater similarity between song/singles that isn't the same when you add albums to the mix. This whole proposal reeks of "providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist". Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: You're confused or ill-informed, so I'll try to outline the problem as clearly as possible.
There are several issues with the way Wikipedia treats music singles. Most of this is due to the common misconception that a "single" is equivalent to "a single (1) song". That myth is supported by the arbitrary setup we've had for {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox album}} over the years, and with the merging of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}, the notion becomes all the more exacerbated. This is why it took 10+ years for those two templates to merge.
Officially, the only real differences between a single, an album, and an EP is length and # of tracks. The term the music industry uses to tie these concepts together is "Records". A single is a Record containing less than four tracks that's about 3-12 minutes long, whereas an LP is usually longer than 25-30 minutes. Anything in between is considered an EP. Note the examples I've given where the line between an EP and a single is exceedingly thin (Grass, People).
This RfC is for reducing template clutter, which not only makes the infobox easier to maintain, but articles as well. For example, in Peacebone, I want to add |longtype=and EP to its infobox, but I can't, because the current song/single infobox template doesn't let me. The album template would, but then it would read as "an EP and single by Animal Collective", which is the wrong order to phrase it (Peacebone is a single that was expanded to an EP). We can add |longtype= to Infobox song, sure, but then it begs the question, why do we need two templates that are basically identical?
If you still don't have a counterargument for any of these points, then may I ask that you retract your vote?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No, you may not ask that. This isn't a policy discussion where you can discount one's argument. It's a subjective matter. You feel your changes would simplify and reduce clutter. I don't agree. Stop badgering me. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm making sure that you know your conclusions are based on fallacies. You seem to be perfectly aware of that fact, otherwise you wouldn't be sidestepping all of my questions. Thanks for the input. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Grass track listing — single
  1. Grass
  2. Must Be Treeman
  3. Fickle Cycle
People track listing — EP
  1. People
  2. Tickwid
  3. My Favorite Colors
  4. People (Live)
Peacebone track listing — EP
  1. Peacebone (album version)
  2. Safer
  3. Peacebone (Black Dice Remix)
  4. Peacebone (Pantha du Prince Remix)
How do you account for these three? Do you really believe the difference between these two formats is so major that they require different templates?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox musical composition}} — the template documentation contains example usages for "Symphony", "Hymn", and "Song" - the merged template will obviously also include something similar in its documentation - nobody is going to wonder which parameters should be used in which article (for a clearer example of what I mean, see #How editors won't be confused)
  • {{Infobox person}} – has dozens of parameters that are only appropriate in certain contexts
Even on the rare occasion that an editor might mistakenly input |lyricist= to an album or |italic_title= to a track, we could add switches for those events that either disable those parameters or list the article in a maintenance category. This would be dependent on the value of |Type=. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support creation of Infobox sound recording - I was not in favour of combining "single" and "song" because I believe that singles are sound recordings and songs are musical compositions. Creating a "sound recording" infobox and using it for albums, EPs, singles, recordings of live concerts, bird calls, standup comedy routines, books on tape and all other releases of recorded sound seems like a good idea. There could be a field for type. Title italics could be programmed from the type parameter or added manually. However, those articles currently using Infobox single or song which are really about compositions of lyrics and melody rather than one specific arrangement and recording should not be migrated to Infobox sound recording; instead they should be changed to display Infobox musical composition. A "song" subset example can be added to the Infobox Musical composition documentation. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Per arguments provided above! livelikemusic talk! 16:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Walter and others, primarily (also agree with Serge's point about "providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist"). I can't see any benefit at all. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The benefit is in eliminating a redundant template, which makes them easier to maintain. If parameters are added or removed in the future, we don't have to constantly synchronize them. It's the same reason why Song and Single were merged. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "Infobox sound recording" seems to imply using it for more than music (and as suggested by Anne Delong). For other sound recordings, additional parameters will be needed to make it useful. This could lead to significantly increasing the size and complexity of the infobox and make it far different from the merged infobox song/single. Additionally, even calling it "Infobox musical recording" would be a stretch, since Infobox album is also used for video albums (and has a field for director). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've looked and there are very few articles for "other" sound recordings. I was only able to find 2 (can't remember what they were). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be used in Bird vocalizations, Mating call, Whale sounds, Steam whistle, Foghorn, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
? Those are generic sounds, not recordings.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The idea is that "sound recordings" is too broad or, as has been suggested, it is seeking to "providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist". —Ojorojo (talk)
I still don't understand. The template is for recorded media. Birds and whales don't fall in that category.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Question Are there any other counterarguments? "It makes things too complicated" is the only one posed so far, but in terms of how the template is used, literally nothing would change.
  1. You'll still be able to use {{Infobox album ... or {{Infobox song ... after it's redirected
  2. Misused parameters will be automatically disabled, depending on the input of |Type=
Where's the complicated part?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Redundancy may have been a reason to merge "infobox single" into "infobox song", although "single" and "song" were separate entities until the late 1990s or early 2000s. Parameters were nearly similar to each other, and ones unique to infobox single, like "Chronology" ones, can become part of the "song" infobox. Well, I see "infobox song" and "infobox album" sharing 16 parameters, pointed out by Walter. However, the merged template having 10 parameters that are unique to "infobox song" would be more burdensome to editors.

    Also, redundancy is not a sufficient reason to merge "infobox song" with "infobox album". Album and song are two different media: album is a collection of songs in one medium, and a song is... a song. Typing in the name of the merged infobox is not easy to memorize as typing either "infobox song" or "infobox album". The parameters related to songwriting, like "lyricist" and "writer"... well, that depends on whoever wrote all songs of an album. However, having a bunch of names of writers/lyrists/composers in a merged infobox about an album would result cluster. Imagine an infobox about a Chinese album, like dandan youqing, and you'll get the message. (Note that I don't use "Track listing" template there due to Chinese characters there.)

    Also, switching between any other type and "album"/"EP" in the "Type" parameter may seem simple, but the "Type" parameter in the merged infobox would require more coding to control the formatting of titles, i.e. italicization of titles. BTW, I asked how personal opinions in lieu of applicable rules may influence consensus, and I received insightful responses, especially ones about using "common sense". George Ho (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd like to withdraw this RfC for now — Clearly not going anywhere. It was a mistake to do this before the merging of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} was settled. In the future I may try a more detailed proposal that addresses everybody's concerns, including what the |Type= switch code would actually look like.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Examples of commonality between templates

Rubber Soul (post-merge Infobox song)
(subject to change)
Rubber Soul (Infobox album) Rubber Soul (Infobox song)
"Rubber Soul"
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg
Studio album by the Beatles
Released 3 December 1965
Recorded 17 June, 12 October–15 November 1965
Studio EMI Studios, London
Genre Folk rock
Length 35:50
Label Parlophone (UK), Capitol (US)
Producer(s) George Martin
The Beatles chronology
Help!
(1965)
Rubber Soul
(1965)
Revolver
(1966)
The Beatles North American chronology
Help!
(1965)
Rubber Soul
(1965)
Yesterday and Today
(1966)
Rubber Soul
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg
Studio album by the Beatles
Released 3 December 1965
Recorded 17 June, 12 October–15 November 1965
Studio EMI Studios, London
Genre Folk rock
Length 35:50
Label Parlophone (UK), Capitol (US)
Producer George Martin
The Beatles chronology
Help!
(1965)
Rubber Soul
(1965)
Revolver
(1966)
The Beatles North American chronology
Help!
(1965)
Rubber Soul
(1965)
Yesterday and Today
(1966)
"Rubber Soul"
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg
Studio album by the Beatles
Released 3 December 1965
Recorded 17 June, 12 October–15 November 1965
Studio EMI Studios, London
Genre Folk rock
Length 35:50
Label Parlophone (UK), Capitol (US)
Producer(s) George Martin
The Beatles chronology
Help!
(1965)
Rubber Soul
(1965)
Revolver
(1966)
The Beatles North American chronology
Help!
(1965)
Rubber Soul
(1965)
Yesterday and Today
(1966)

How editors won't be confused

This is (roughly) what the post-merge template documentation would look like.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2017 (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.

Replacement of parameters

Unless anyone has objections, the uppercase parameters in transclusions of {{Infobox single}}/{{Infobox song}} (except |ISWC=, |A-side= and |B-side=) are to be changed to their lowercase counterparts by a bot per MOS:INFOBOX, which states that parameter names should use lower-case unless they are proper nouns; see WP:BOTREQ#Parameter titles. This is to be done as part of the merger of the two templates, discussed here earlier. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
07:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Can it be appropriate sometimes to italicize singles?

From MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:MINORWORK:

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

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

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

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

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

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Songs.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Songs, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I always find these charts very interesting. I'm currently baffled as to why ours - the songs chart - currently lists Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte as the number one entry though?? I must be missing something... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
"The title song became a hit for Patti Page, who took it to No. 8..." ? Just a guess. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I caught that too, but...wasn't that a short stint back in the 1960s? Why is it the number one most read song article for April 2017? I kinda figured it'd be...I don't know, a big song by Lady Gaga or The Chainsmokers or someone currently huge at the moment. I know there's plenty of non-recent stuff on that list, but this song doesn't strike me as something like, lets say "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "Free Fallin", that's been "immortalized" through classic radio stations. It's not like it really matters or anything, I just find stats interesting (but bizarre outliers less-so.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable parodies

When a song is familiar (and parodied) enough for a parody to be published in a notable source, how should the existence of parodies be mentioned in the song's article? Examples: an especially memorable parody of "There's a Long Long Trail A-Winding" (There's a long long nail a-grinding into the heel of my shoe...) is in my copy of Rise Up Singing, and an Americanized version of "The Road to the Isles" is in that same songbook as well as being featured in Julie (George novel). Can you refer me to guidelines, or at least good examples of how to deal well with parodies? --Egmonster (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs&oldid=781916598"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA