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.
 

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Song titles vs track titles

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

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

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

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

Bob Dylan...Blonde on Blonde

Hiya, Wikipedians!

I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album. Another editor has reverted several of these edits. I made revisions based on his comments but these changes were reverted also. I do not agree with - and, in at least one instance, do not understand the objections given. Rather than get into an edit war I decided to bring the issue here.

The other editor initially objected that the references I had added were not notable. I felt that a band that is a Grammy award-winning member of the Grand Ole Opry and an album that has received national press coverage (Rolling Stone, The New Yorker) was at least as notable as the often obscure recordings already mentioned in these particular articles. The other party agreed with that observation, but then argued that the real reason for reverting was to avoid "endless lists of covers." Few, if any, of these articles mentioned more than a handful of covers - none were at risk of being overwhelmed by endless lists. And I felt that removing only a single entry, simply because it was the one most recently added, was highly arbitrary. Then the reason appeared to become that tribute albums are inherently not notable - another arbitrary decision - and I pointed out that many of the remaining entries were also for songs from tribute albums, some by major performers. And I was particularly confused by his citation of wikipedia policies that seemed to deal with the creation of stand-alone articles rather than additions to existing articles, as none of these edits had created a new, stand-alone article.

This individual seemed to consider it to be a challenge or personal affront that I disagreed with him - this would be borne out by a review of our dialog on his talk page. His most recent response was to remove ALL mentions of cover versions in several of these articles - which seems to me to be based on spite rather than a desire for editorial consistency. In other words..."I'll show you...."

If the determination is indeed that there should be NO mention of ANY cover versions of these songs, so be it - maybe that's better than arbitrary omissions. I'm completely in favor of consistency. But I personally think that that information adds to a reader's understanding of the song's cultural impact - and also that completely removing that information, rather than considering the addition of an item to the list, is a questionable decision. If you're going to remove entire sections from multiple articles, do it because it's the right editorial decision, NOT because you want to spite another editor.

Thanks for your thoughts.PurpleChez (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@PurpleChez: it's probably a good idea to post this at WikiProject Albums instead - not just because you're talking about an album rather than a song, but also because that WikiProject tends to be more active than this one, so you're more likely to get responses. Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!! PurpleChez (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) but only if you can do it in one edit! Use preview to avoid problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Walter...please don't take offence when I say that your comment made me laugh...at myself. Nowhere else do my OCD tendencies show themselves that in proofreading and revision. I make myself nuts!! Thanks for the heads up!!! PurpleChez (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
it's taking all the will power I can muster not to change "that" to "than" in the preceding paragraph!!! PurpleChez (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The OP said, "I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album." As it relates to the song articles, not the album article, this was the correct forum for this discussion. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Simon & Garfunkel

The Coolies did an album in 1986 consisting mostly of Simon & Garfunkel covers. I was in the process of adding this fact to the "Covers" section of the articles on each of these songs, however, Sundayclose ‎began following me, and undoing these edits. Rather than getting in an edit war, I figured I'd leave it to the masses. DB Records, The Coolies, is it worthy of mention in the articles for these songs?

First of all, having several S&G songs on my watchlist is not "following" you. Secondly, I gave the explanation for my reverts: your additions fail WP:SONGCOVER. You have not made the slightest attempt to provide what is necessary for the songs to be included as covers. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Sundayclose is correct: plenty of songs have been covered by many, many people – WP:SONGCOVER states that only cover versions important enough to have gained significant media attention in their own right should be added. Unless you can find independent media coverage of the Coolies' versions, they should not be mentioned in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
A better way to phrase what I was trying to say is that you followed my edits with your edits. I didn't mean it as a personal "you were stalking me" thing.Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
As noted, SONGCOVER has specific requirements. However, some editors have argued that SONGCOVER only applies to creating a separate section about the cover in a song article and that simply adding an artist's name (as in a bulleted list) does not need to meet the "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song" criterion. This may be a source of some of the ongoing confusion and perhaps the SONGCOVER wording could be clarified. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I've never seen a serious case made for applying the requirements only to separate sections. WP:SONGCOVER states: "discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article ... only if at least one" of the criteria for inclusion apply; nothing about a separate section. One of the reasons for the requirements is to prevent a huge list of covers that overshadows the article about the main version of the song. With a few exceptions, most songs only have one or two significant covers at most. Sundayclose (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There have been several instances, but this more recent discussion came to mind, specifically the comment "it is my interpretation of SONGCOVER that the notability aspect applies to a separate section within the article such as the Cream version." Apparently, the use of the word "discussion" in "discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article" was interpreted as allowing for a brief mention of a cover, since it wasn't longer, multi-sentenced text or "discussion" as one would find in a separate section. It may be minor point, but "discussion" doesn't add anything to SONGCOVER and could be removed: "When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies ..." Also, SONGCOVER could include a general statement similar to the one on the project page ("Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article") – "Most cover versions/multiple renditions do not merit inclusion in a song article." Obviously, many editors aren't getting the message and could use the extra reminder. —Ojorojo (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone subscribe to Billboard? I need to know some boxscore data.

For Number 1 to Infinity (residency show) please. Legs 3 and 5.  — Calvin999 08:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Roll with the Punches

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

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

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

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

I feel that something should be done about Song.

It doesn't even have an importance rating, but, well, there's the obvious irony.

--Cprice45 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs&oldid=801400793"
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:WikiProject Songs"; 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