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.

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)

Is there another place to raise this issue? I'd hate to see this conversation stall. RfC? Not sure how to proceed to get more community discussion. @Walter Görlitz, Michig, Izno, Ojorojo, Koavf, Synthwave.94, and Explicit: Pinging you all as contributors to this section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Unfortunately, song categories have become just another target for drive-by tagging, often unsupported by any mention or reference in the article. Other editors see it as describing all of the influences on the artist or their song catalogue. In any event, many of the listed categories are not defining characteristics of the song. Since this may be part of a bigger problem (WP:ALBUMS), etc.), maybe it should be taken up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Images of Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song)

The images of Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song) are taken to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 1#Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song), where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is relisted into Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 21#Off the Wall (Michael Jackson song). You can comment there while the discussion is still ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Covers lists

@Ojorojo:, @JG66: If a song article includes a list of cover versions—without any other disucssion—do the covers need to meet the requirements of WP:COVERSONG to be included? The policy reads as though it applies to discussions, and not lists. Is a list assumed to be a form of discussion, or an implied discussion? Tapered (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right that the guideline (not a policy, I think?) refers to discussion of a particular cover version, although I'd say it should be kept in mind, at least, with regard to bulleted lists also. I don't have much experience with lists of cover versions – don't like them much, quite frankly. What I normally do is convert a bullet list into "proper" text, so that there's a clearly defined section discussing the song's popularity with other recording artists and (often more importantly, imo) what these cover versions and alternative interpretations have each added to the song's legacy. In the process, it often means binning a good many covers that don't merit inclusion. That's not to say there won't be some sort of short list of other notable artists who have recorded it. But I'm talking about a single sentence perhaps, and ideally supported by a single reliable source that says "the song has also been recorded by …"
I should say, I work mostly on songs by the Beatles or ex-Beatles, where we're entirely spoiled for choice with regard to sources, and many of them discuss or list notable cover versions. So I'm not sure how helpful my experience is to you.
I tried to find an example song article and first stop was "Yesterday (Beatles song)" – because, you know, it's been covered by a few people. Although I remember seeing a sentence or two there, years ago, listing some well-known cover artists of the song, I now find it's been removed. So, now, we've got an article in which the lead section says that "Yesterday" has attracted 2200 cover versions, which must obviously have had some bearing on the BMI calculation of over 7 million performances of the song in the 20th century; but, in the main body, the only statement about cover versions is to say that Matt Munro's was the first of many and it was a top ten hit in the UK. That's flippin' ridiculous. I mention this because, while I imagine the list approach you refer to might not be how I'd ever go about it, there is a midpoint, and we should be free to provide a list of notable artists who have covered a song when there's a source saying as much. And if there's a list that requires a source, especially when the song's really well known (perhaps that was the issue at "Yesterday", I don't know), then it should be tagged for a decent period before removal. Otherwise, "Yesterday" being an example, Wikipedia just ends up looking stupid.
PS. Didn't actually get your ping – just saw your comment because this page is on my watch list. JG66 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on "guideline." Very thoughtful comment. I'm going to hold off with any more of my comments until, hopefully, one or two other quality posts appear. Yours ought to draw them. Tapered (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In my assessment (repeat, in my assessment) a bullet list is a useful way to present a small to medium amount of information in easily digested form. I see no harm in presenting such information outside of a text discussion, as long as it'd done to further access to information. Personally, I'd limit them to 10 entries, but that's arbitrary. Lengthy lists are designed to overwhelm readers and create (often spurious) significance for the subject of the article. Tapered (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
[moved following 26 June comment]
@Ojorojo: My impression of you is an honest editor, which includes not pushing a fixed, conditioned point of view or acquiring power and prestige. The best definition of a fool I've ever seen is, "Someone trying to be honest with the dishonest." I won't try to edit popular song articles again because any attempt to deal with the rest of the editors below would be foolish indeed, and a waste of my time. Thanks for your thoughts. They were interesting. Tapered (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I do believe the implication is that I am amonth the dishonest and a waste of time. Interesting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I would rather deal with a recalcitrant steer or ram (not a bull) than deal with you inflexibly adhering to some belief you hold dear. I recalled that you're a Mennonite, so I figure you'll understand the analogy. Tapered (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what I did to deserve such a classification either. A question was asked, and I politely gave my two cents on how I usually handle it. It's not like I got stubborn or bossy about it either, nor was the exchange heated or lengthy... Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I'm wrong. My bad. Tapered (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The same applies to me. I look at each instance of the song and make a judgment call. A song like the one you're referencing would be handled quite differently than "White Christmas" would be. The former has a few covers while the latter has at least a dozen annually.
As for the bovine metaphor: I have never lived on a farm so I have no idea what you're talking about, and unless you are apologizing, I'd say WP:STICK it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Apologize to ROTFLMAOMF. Tapered (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In past discussions, I don't recall COVERSONG only being applied to text or separate sections within the article. WP articles should provide encyclopedic content and not an indiscriminate collection of information. COVERSONG is an attempt to define what is noteworthy. Seemingly random lists of artists who recorded a particular song may overwhelm articles (particularly those with dozens or hundreds of covers) and detract from the proper focus on the song itself. Renditions should be limited to notable artists and be able to provide more than a name: date, singles chart info, album name, awards, etc. Ideally, they should referenced to a discussion of the rendition in a reliable source and not from a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, such as an album track listing or a general song search at AllMusic or Discogs. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC) This is how I've always handled things too - I only include cover versions from notable artists that can be sourced with a third party source, and trim out any others. Even outside of WP:COVERSONG, that's a pretty commonly used inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Sergecross73. The performer or the recording must be notable and a third-party reference (I don't like using Amazon or iTunes) discussing it is preferred. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The removed bullet point list (three of the versions were actually referenced) was of value because it illustrated the variety of artists—rockers, bluesmen, rappers, and points between—who've recorded the song. If it wouldn't be original research to write, "The song has been covered by a wide variety of artists, rockers Alex Chilton...etc" perhaps that or something similar could be included. In any event, the idea is to somehow illustrate variety. To sum up, deleting the bullet list removed what seems to me useful info from the article. Personally, I don't like the length of the list, but all the artists removed on 5 June were notable, while most were, indeed, unsourced. Tapered (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

[moved from above] @Tapered: Regarding your recent edit:[1] "Tramp" has been recorded by a dozen or more artists. An earlier version of the article listed several,[2] before they were removed for not meeting SONGCOVER.[3] What is noteworthy about Johnny Winter's version that it has been re-added to the lead? The ref only lists Winter as an artist and the song is not discussed in his AllMusic bio[4] or WP article. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo:, @Toddst1:, @JG66:, @Sergecross73:, @Walter Görlitz: A DISCUSSION ≠ A LIST. Repeat and rinse. My objection to the list deletion @ Tramp was that a policy relating to DISCUSSIONS was indiscriminately extended to delete a LIST. If there's no guideline concerning lists, it's not good enough to extrapolate a discussion policy without some strong line of reasoning—which was notably absent. Inclusion in a list doesn't require the same conditions as inclusion in a discussion, or at least there's no guideline for it. On that basis, I reject Toddst1's and your attempt to impose discussion guidelines on a list, out of hand. Most of the artists weren't referenced and deserved deletion, but not all. I think that puts my position in some agreement with Sergecross 73, and even with my bete noire, Herr Görlitz, who rightfully insist on notable artists and proper references for inclusion in a list.
Before writing this I listened to Lowell Fulson and Salt N Pepa's versions of the song. There's not much to the original—just Lowell Fulson's guitar lick/hook, a rap about being a tramp, and a short, not very memorable sung melody. Otis R and Carla T turned it into a comedic 'debate.' I doubt that it would have done as well on the pop (as opposed to R&B) charts without the horn melody/hook from the Memphis horns—which Salt N Pepa very shrewdly included in their theft sampling. (When I think of the song, the first thing I hear in my mind is the Memphis horns.) Combine its lack of musicological interest with the fact that it only reached #26 on the pop charts, and it's not hard to understand why it hasn't generated enough attention and writing to justify much of a discussion in its Wikipedia article. So inclusion of a list of notable performers is especially useful for this article, as an illustration of its appeal and staying power. I didn't like the length of the list before deletion, and for articles about more notable songs, such a list would be purely a vanity project. For this particular song, while the list may incorporate a component of vanity, it's also very useful information. That's my argument for inclusion of the deleted list, AFTER proper documentation. And I think that Amazon is a reliable source for information for simple data like record names and song titles.
For the record, my inclusion of Johnny Winter in the article was, in part, an ad hominem reaction to a frustrating discussion, BUT an ad hominem reaction corroborating a performance by a notable R&B artist (as per the preceding clause), backed by a reliable source:BMI. Please also note that WP:NSONG confers WP:N, if a song "has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." I'm going to change the addition to Roy Head, because although Johnny Winter's name on the performance (with BMI) may have generated revenue for Fulson and his estate, the artist of record was Roy Head.
I also wonder if Steve Cropper had anything to do with Memphis Horns hook. Tapered (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You have raised several issues and seem to apply a lot of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. However, you haven't answered why Winter's/Head's version should be in the lead. The actual single lists the artist as "The Traits"[5] – Head's group that briefly included Winter,[6] which was noted in the pre-June song article. BMI song listings under "Artist" are often incomplete. They don't mention the other artists included in the pre-June 5 article, such as Buddy Guy, ZZ Top, Steve Miller, etc., who are much better-known than Head. A simple check of the AllMusic album reviews for these artists would have confirmed that they recorded the song.
The more important point, however, is whether any of these should be included. The refs only serve to confirm their existence, not that they are popular, noteworthy, important, influential, etc. WP:NSONG does not "confer" WP:NOTABILITY: it states, if a song "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" then this may "suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful". Even if the song is notable, this in no way implies that all its covers are notable; in fact, your interpretation contradicts WP:COVERSONG, which further defines whether a rendition should be included in the article.
Again, song articles should provide encyclopedic content. A list of covers can be found at AllMusic, Discogs, etc. WP:NOTEVERYTHING includes: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight."
Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tapered: I'm not sure how helpful it is to resume this, given the issue's become somewhat inflamed – but just to clarify my position.
My point is that guidelines such as WP:COVERSONG should be kept in mind for a list of covers, and that a bulleted list of such items should in fact be avoided. The middle ground I referred to, between discussion of a particular recording and a list of several, concerns what I imagine would be particularly well-known songs and the inclusion of a sentence or two to state that the song has been covered by these artists ... Again, I acknowledge that the Beatles songs I work on are a rare breed: there's an abundance of commentary on each one and, unsurprisingly, cover versions are often discussed. So my point about "Yesterday" was that it's easy to mention some of the cover artists as identified by (and these sources are just off the top of my head): Chris Ingham in the Rough Guides title on the Beatles, Kenneth Womack's Beatles Encyclopedia, individual studies dedicated to the Sgt. Pepper album by Olivier Julien and Allan F. Moore, same for John Kruth's book on Rubber Soul and David Quantick's on the White Album. I know I've read in one of Alan Clayson's books, for instance, that "Yesterday" became ubiquitous in set lists for what he witheringly terms "the supper-club market" – Johnny Mathis, Petula Clark, Tony Bennett, Shirley Bassey, Andy Williams, etc. – and on their easy-listening albums. Better that, imo, than to leave the issue of the hundreds of cover versions barely touched on in the article. Alternatively, I believe it's correct to mention that a song's been covered by the artists listed at the end of Robert Fontenot's articles in his series for (since he's identified as a reliable source), or those highlighted in an AllMusic article on the Beatles' original. It's not a case of giving any release details, just a short list of artists who have covered the song as identified by a RS. I don't believe this is necessarily any different from what's been said above by Ojorojo, Serge and Walter – but perhaps I'm wrong. JG66 (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

GA reassessment on HIStory/Ghosts

Hello again. I started Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HIStory/Ghosts/1, a GA reassessment on HIStory/Ghosts. Feel free to improve the article and/or comment at the community GAR. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about White House petition to make Party in the USA the national anthem

There is an ongoing Request for Comment about whether to include a petition started by Elijah Daniel in the article about him, which was a White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem.

You may comment, if you wish, at: Talk:Elijah_Daniel#RfC_about_White_House_petition_to_make_Party_in_the_USA_the_national_anthem.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Parent company of AllMusic nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Media Network

The parent company of AllMusic was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Media Network. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hands (Mike Perry song)#Artist credits

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hands (Mike Perry song)#Artist credits. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal of Dutch certification parameter

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Dutch certification entry – removal or not? about what to do about the template parameter for Dutch certifications. The official NVPI website which used to show all the Dutch certifications has been inactive now for almost two years, and the 400 or so song and album articles that use this template now just link to a series of pop-up ads when you click on the citation, which probably isn't good for Wikipedia or anybody's computer or mobile device. Richard3120 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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