Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs

Many schools, colleges, and universities have a fight song and it has become common to include details about them in the articles of the establishments. While fight songs can be an important thing for the organisation themselves it is questionable if they are encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion.

This discussion aimed to produce guidance on the inclusion of fight songs.

Result of the discussion

The result of the discussion was:

• Fight songs do not need special guidelines.
• Some notable fight songs exist, but many of the existing articles about fight songs do not establish their notability.
• Information about fight songs can be included in the page about the institution or its team.
• Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles. If free, they should be in Wikisource; if copyrighted, they should not be included.

Thank you to everyone who contributed. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by violet/riga (t) (originator)

I think that only the fight songs that are notable should merit inclusion in an organisation's article. That would be those which have a third party source written about them. I do not believe that there is any reason to include the lyrics for a fight song and would like to see the list at fight song removed, with only significantly notable examples being mentioned. I propose that fight songs can be mentioned and named (with history/other details given) but lyrics should not be included and only those that are notable should have their own section. I bring this here because it would be somewhat rude to remove them all without any prior discussion. violet/riga (t) 11:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it this should really apply to all School songs. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion, please stop removing fight songs from articles with a link to this page as if some consensus exists. I believe the point of this page is to determine the community's opinion, and not to serve as a preemptive strike. If/when a determination is made (remove them/keep them), that will be the time to act. - auburnpilot talk 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a batch after awaiting further comments, and have only done a small number. If removing them draws attention to this discussion then great - as it is there's not been a comment here to support their inclusion. violet/riga (t) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to draw attention to this discussion, find a pump and leave a notice there. Don't simply start acting with a link that implies there is some consensus. - auburnpilot talk 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I could've done it without starting any discussion. This is a centralised area for discussion that had four editors conclude that their inclusion is not correct. After nearly three days without further comment I decided to test out a batch. Please now discuss your reasons for including them. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless they're violating a copyright, I see no harm in letting them remain. Might as well run around deleting traditions and customs from the school pages as well, as fight and school songs are just as important.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 05:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To further elaborate on my point, what you're suggesting be deleted are integral parts of a university or college. For example, you deleted the Arkansas fight song, which has been sung since the 1920's, thus over a period of more than 80 years. The song is older than the majority of buildings on the campus! Is the fact that the song is immaterial make it any less a part of the information that should be associated with the school, versus say a seventy year old hall? Another problem to borrow from your activity at the University of Arkansas article, is that you deleted a cheer, in addition to the songs present. This shows that you either have little concern for this area of information (blanket deletions of anything resembling what you disagree with), or simply are not very well informed. This in turn suggests that you might not have the best knowledge and background to establish a policy that affects this topics. I know nothing about rugby, and hence, I would make no attempts at establishing policies that affect the subject of rugby.

Lastly, while I would address this in your talk page, you have already directed all comments concerning this topic here. I would like to address your statement in the Auburn War Eagle editing history. You reversed a reversal of your deletion by stating that four editors agreed to this change. One, removing yourself, that leaves three editors. Two, only two of those editors completely agreed with your suggestion, with another offering a different approach. It then seems rather disingenuous to revert someone's edit by claiming four editors support it, when in fact, it is your own proposal fully supported only by two others.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 05:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the examples linked below. Yes there can be a place for fight songs but I truly believe that they can detract from an article. As for talking about my levels of concern or how well informed I am I would appreciate it if you were focussing on the issue and not bringing it to a personal level - that will not further this conversation at all. As for the four people, all four that had commented here were saying that the lyrics should not be included. And the only revert I did was reversed by myself in the spirit of WP:BRD. violet/riga (t) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt it was a personal attack. As I noted, I only mentioned it here because the last person to attempt to discuss your behavior and actions with you was directed to this page from your talk page. You did not, however, address my argument about the integral nature of songs to schools above. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The song might be "integral" and my proposal is that they can be noted, but I don't think the inclusion of all the lyrics/words is a good idea. violet/riga (t) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By and by, I went back and reviewed your edits on the War Eagle page, and wanted to state for the record that after you did make the revert (with 4 editor comment), you did go back about ten minutes later and restore the original edit under WP:BRD. I apologize for not clearly representing that situation. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs/examples shows four examples from articles as they stand right now. West Virginia Mountaineers, to me, is the one that has it right while Appalachian State University is a perfect example of the kind of content we should remove. violet/riga (t) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that most of the articles could be better, and we need to be careful of copyvio's on lyrics, but I don't see the need to have either a policy, or guideline. It seems that the regular content guidelines fit what needs doing on these articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be covered well by existing policies/guidelines and, as you can see from this page, there are some that believe the lyrics should be included. violet/riga (t) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternate proposal by Caknuck (t)

Truly notable fight songs (such as the Aggie War Hymn and On, Wisconsin!) will by nature have their own articles.

As fight songs are traditionally linked with U.S. college sporting events, the place for mentioning in this context should be at the article focusing on the athletic program of the school. For example, Glory, Glory should be mentioned at Georgia Bulldogs and not at University of Georgia.

For schools that do not warrant separate articles for their athletics programs, a brief mention of a fight song would be appropriate in the section of the college's article devoted to athletics. For example, if Texas Wesleyan University has a fight song, it should be mentioned briefly in the "Sports" section of the main article.

In cases where professional teams have fight songs (such as Fly, Eagles Fly of the Philadelphia Eagles), the ideal place for mentioning them is in the section for club traditions and/or history.

Fight songs of high schools are not notable enough for mention.

Reprinting of lyrics may violate copyright laws and should not be permitted. Even in cases where the lyrics have passed into public domain, reprinting them may set a bad precedent. External links to the lyrics (preferably at the college's/team's official Web site) would be preferable.

• I agree fully with this proposal. As long as the songs' use as a fight song has been verified, I see no reason why we can't mention them in the article. We should definitely not reprint the lyrics, but we should at least mention them, as per User:Violetriga's example of the West Virginia Mountaineers. Additionally, any that have passed into public domain should be shunted to Wikisource and linked, as per User:Crotalus horridus' suggestion. If at all necessary, we can perhaps include a single line to illustrate the song, but that should be unusual rather than the norm. ♠PMC♠ 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Crotalus horridus

If the lyrics of a fight song are in the public domain due to age, then they can be kept at Wikisource, and linked from here (perhaps with an infobox). If they are not in the public domain (and aren't otherwise under a license we can use), then we should only link to the official version on the school's own website. Wikipedia generally doesn't store entire source texts anyway.

• Concur, Wikisource them. Strandwolf (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Concur per this edit of mine and ensuing disucssion I had with other editor. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• yes - of course quoting a portion in an article would be acceptable, if needed in the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose any proposal - Autiger

I see no need for a broad policy on the narrow subject of fight songs; any concern about them can be addressed under existing policies and guidelines.

Generally, a fight song is an attribute or part of the university and should be included as a fact in the athletics, tradition or main university article as seen fit by the editors for those articles with as deep coverage as is deemed necessary (since the songs have varying importance for different institutions) so long as any information included is verifiable. A fight song with its own article should establish notability with sufficient reliable sources.

Lyrics for fight songs are covered by normal copyright policies; either the lyrics are covered under restricted copyright and inclusion is a violation prohibited by policy or they are in the public domain or GFDL- (or equivalent) licensed and may be included.

I also am concerned about the location of this discussion and the way the limited "consensus" has since been used. It would seem that some notice should have been made, if not at Village Pump as AuburnPilot suggested, then at some logical Wikiprojects such as University or college football where editors interested in the subject matter congregate.

Per WP:V only things that are verifiable through appropriate third party sources should be included and few fight songs meet that. While I accept that fight songs can be important and historical in the culture of a university I do not see the merit in us including the lyrics. In fact I strongly believe that including the lyrics to school songs, particularly fight songs, detracts from the article.

CENT is an appropriate place for such discussions and it was linked from Talk:Fight song. Yes it could've been included on the VP and I will add a link now. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be surprised by the number of fight songs that are covered by third party sources. Your belief that lyrics detract is just that, your belief; others may, and probably do, believe differently. Creating a discussion about such a narrow issue without notifying editors most familiar with the subject matter smacks a bit of forum shopping. AUTiger » talk 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At no point have I said that few fight songs are covered by such sources. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm..."Per WP:V only things that are verifiable through appropriate third party sources should be included and few fight songs meet that."[1] Not that I'm playing "gotcha" as I don't think this is really the focus of the discussion, but these songs are covered frequently by third party sources and easily meet the requirements of verifiability. - auburnpilot talk 22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all there - there are plenty of fight songs that are covered by third party sources, but few that are appropriate third party sources. I would expect a fight song to be detailed by students and alumni but I am not so certain that they would be written about in journals or professional media. Please do prove me wrong in this, perhaps with sources for the examples. Still, my main concern is the inclusion of lyrics. violet/riga (t) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Autiger. Let existing guidelines and policies be used rather than adding more rules where ample ones already exist. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify our rules for me - should we include the lyrics or not under current rules? violet/riga (t) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. It would rarely if ever be appropriate to include the entire lyrics of the songs even if they are in the public domain. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Autiger and Wordbuilder, there are existing guidelines about songs in Wikipedia. Fight songs are a particular subset of music with crossovers to patriotic songs, state songs, and national hymns. Lyrics are often placed in the song article to help explain the meaning. However, lyrics that are protected by copyright are speedily removed. Arrangements of fight songs typically have been published on sheet music for the purpose of selling in music stores or catalogs. Music publishing companies should be able to serve as legitimate or appropriate 3rd party sources. Deleting of fight songs on judgment of notability might occur on a case-by-case basis, but that happens with song articles all the time on Wikipedia. My opinion is that if a school is notable, and/or its musical organization is notable, then a composition associated with that school or organization is also notable. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal by Jameson L. Tai

This discussion is very similar to the article guidelines RfC which ended up escalading into an all-out battle between people who found student organizations not notable and those who keep trying to establish their student org in UK as a non-profit (hence notability...which in my book, does not fly). But I digress.

I highly dislike editors who like to do preemptive edits, or tries to desperately grab the attention of others by sabotaging multiple articles just so their little question gets answered by numerous angry editors. user:violetriga, I urge you to establish consensus before starting possible edit wars as well as unnecessary conflict on Wikipedia.

Here's my alternative proposal, which comprises two proposals mentioned above which I kind of like:

• For existing song articles already on Wikipedia who have established proper notability, keep them there, transwiki a copy to Wikisource, and link it back to the fight song's Wikipedia article.
• For existing song lyrics that violate copyrights, link it to the end of the school/university article's external links/reference list
• For existing songs in which lyrics are in the public domain (or no one has claimed them), transwiki then to Wikisource and place proper redirect links.

This guideline should be followed by fight songs, school songs, and hymns of schools and universities.

How does this sound? For something this big, I really want a lot more people voicing their opinions on this issue. A mere 5/6 editors will not be enough in this case. Please let me know how you feel about this. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how editing a few articles is "sabotage" and remind you that discussions don't need to happen at all before such editing, so it's a bit rude to have you say such things when I've already initiated discussions and merely trialled the edits three days after no further comments were made. violet/riga (t) 10:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had placed a series of notices on University Talk pages, you probably would have alerted more even minded individuals to your concern on the issues. I noticed you did go to the talk page of the Fight Song article and place such a notice. However, after only garnering three responses, only two of which fully supported your own proposal, you went and altered 16 articles as if you had a mandate. For such an important topic, you should have waited for more feedback from your original discussion, rather than make a slew of deletions. It appears, at least from my perspective, it was an attempt to garner attention to your proposal which had failed to attract much more than three other editors after three days (and all of those three on the first day, no more until your series of edits). Frankly, it appears your proposal is simply not popular, nor garnering attention until you decided to throw fuel on the fire and draw people out via deletions. It would be much better for your position to go back, correct the deletions that have not been reverted, and post notices on the talk pages of the articles which will be affected on much, much larger percentage of the university articles. Thanks. Rebel At 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You say that the "proposal is simply not popular" but there wasn't a single opposing comment and I acted after three days of silence. I could have gone around and removed all the fight songs without posting this at all so I find it somewhat frustrating to have people moan when I have gone to the trouble of initiating discussions. I did not want to advertise this on the talk pages of those articles because that would clearly produce a bias. violet/riga (t) 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's the trick, though, isn't it? You're saying the editors this change will impact the most shouldn't be actively drawn in, because they'll not like it. I think your position would uphold better if you had gotten a large number of editors agreeing with you to the change, and then after a period of days with no opposition, to go forward with your plans. This didn't happen. There were only three editors, only two of which who fully supported your plan. You need to draw in more editors from the articles to be affected, rather than get fewer editors than fingers on the hand, and use the claim of consensus as validation for later, mass article affectation. Not to mention, this is a rather busy time for many people around the world. ;) Thanks. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As said before there was no need for consensus and I never claimed one anyway. The edit summary was used to inform people of what I was doing and gave a link for people to discuss it should they wish. Many university articles are in a bad situation and attract highly biased editors - they are not the ones that should be making decisions about the interpretation of our policies/guidelines. violet/riga (t) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Caerwine

As a general rule, I'd say that the fight song lyrics themselves should be on Wikisource (if eligible to be placed there), with inclusion in the athletic department article itself only if some commentary on the history or meaning of the lyrics are provided. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a job for...

It seems to me that this whole issue should be turned over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities for them to articulate an informal position on this issue. It's too specific a thing to require an independent rule and requires judgment as to whether a song is notable, so it's a job for an editorial committee, not a guideline.--Father Goose (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have written onto the talk page of WP:UNI regarding the subject. Hopefully I can gather a couple of people and discuss what should be done about this issue. Regardless, Happy New Year! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by AuburnPilot

Whether or not the lyrics of a fight song should be included in a university article should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I certainly understand the opposition to including lyrics in the main university articles, although I disagree with it, but there is certainly no reason to remove the lyrics to fight songs from articles such as War Eagle (note there is content discussing the fight song rather than just the lyrics alone). Article such as this, which describe the traditions associated with a university, are a perfect place for such content. Unless there is a copyright issue that would prohibit the lyrics from being included, our current policies do not prohibit their inclusion. WP:NOT#LYRICS simply states that an article may not consist solely of the lyrics. It does not say articles may not include lyrics, but that there should be additional content. WP:NOT is policy and should not get into specifics such as fight songs. All in all, I do not believe a guideline or policy needs to be created to deal with fight songs. I do not believe they detract from articles, and in fact believe they improve articles such as War Eagle. The fight songs should not be removed unless there is a legitimate reason such as copyright infringement. - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I essentially agree with this comment. Lyrics (in the public domain) are often useful depending on the context they appear on the article and there is not wikipedia policy preventing their inclusion, only that an article cannot solely consist of them. I would extend this further to say they can not be the primary information in the article (that is you can't simply have an opening saying the name, author, publication year and then just have the lyrics). However, I do not agree with the wording of the consensus decision that full public domain lyrics should never be included in an article. 5 of the 12 comments were supportive of lyrics in some instances and the conclusion on the consensus on that topic seems to be overstated. This should be decided on article-by-article basis as, in my opinion, inclusion benefits certain articles like Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech in which the lyrics are both wikilinked to provide information as to their meaning and are important for the context of the subsequent details of their historical development and alternatives. I believe that lyrics should not be the sole or major component of an article, as they in themselves do not generally justify notability. However, if they reside in the public domain their inclusion may be warranted if they facilitate a discussion as to the meaning, culture or history and development of the song. Removal of lyrics doesn't necessarily improve an article nor does their inclusion violate established wikipedia policy. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

After a decision was reached here, I attempted to apply it to several articles and was met with strong opposition in several instances. Schools with only a few supporters on Wikipedia saw the fight song lyrics removed and not added back in. Other fight song articles had the lyrics added back in immediately and repeatedly. Editors felt that this centralized discussion carried little or no weight. Until all articles on this subject are treated alike, I think trying to enforce the removal of lyrics is unfair. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is because the issue of public domain lyrics has already been spoken to at a higher categorical level by the Song Wikiproject according to Wikipedia:SONG#LYRICS which very clearly does not prohibit the inclusion of full public domain lyrics in articles. This speaks to lyrics in hundreds of well established articles and categories such as Category:Christian hymns, Category:National anthems, Category: American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, etc., and includes Featured Articles such as Old Dan Tucker and Dixie. A blanket ban on lyrics regardless of context, such as was the conclusion that was reached in the discussion for fight songs, is treading close to violating WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The "consensus" on lyrics reached here was with limited participation of editors and for a very limited categorization of song and actually violates the intention of WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS which does not forbid the use of full public domain lyrics as long as it is not the sole component of an article (to avoid it becoming a "primary source" as stated in WP:Lyrics). It is my belief that the discussion should have originally taken place at the level of the Wikiproject:Song. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your input. Even as I attempted "enforcement", I was curious as to how this discussion really carried any weight. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to clarify my position, since there has been some recent discussion, I do not have a problem with the inclusion of lyrics within articles about a fight song, so long as they do not represent a copyright violation. Sure, they could be included at WikiSource, but why subject readers to yet another pointless sister project. If the lyrics are relevant, do not represent a copyright violation, and are the subject of discussion within the article, I can't see a justification for removing them. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me either. At best, is appears to be unnecessary rules creep. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

• WP:NOT#LYRICS
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maroon and Gold (from October 2007 - commented on by only a small number of people; result: keep without lyrics)

Finalization of what we want to do - calling the question

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.

---

Let's list what our options are and review your main points. I understand we have our different proposals, but since so many of them are either bickering or restating the what the last person said +/- one or two words, let's just categorize what our options are so that we can have a simple vote on this issue. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say:

• Fight song lyrics should not be included in school/college/uni articles except for small segments as part of the prose
• Lyrics should be linked to either on an external site or on WikiSource, depending on copyright status

I think that the majority of people commenting here are favouring the above. While some have said that this is covered by existing policies/guidelines nobody has actually pointed out which part(s) of which one(s). violet/riga (t) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate the question(s) then please add short Yes or No supporting sentences,

• Do Fight Songs need their own special guidelines, or are the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs sufficient to cover the particulars of Fight songs? Group29 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fight songs that have their own article should meet the guidelines of that WikiProject. Fight songs in school/uni articles are not really covered by them. violet/riga (t) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fight songs in their own article are covered by the general songs guidelines. Fightsong information in a school/university article should also conform to those guidelines as applicable to an article section. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No fight songs do not need special guidelines. Group29 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No fight songs do not need special guidelines as general policies cover applicable questions about mention of the song or inclusion of lyrics. AUTiger » talk 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No fight songs do not need special guidelines as WP:UNI does not have a specific guideline regarding fight songs. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Follow the existing guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Horologium (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they are almost all non-notable anyway. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No per the above. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No related guidelines adequately cover this Zedla (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Existing guidelines are sufficient to cover fight songs. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are fight songs notable enough to be included? Or should that discussion be taken to the Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) discussion? Group29 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Many fight songs are notable, but not all. Prose about fight songs is fine either as a separate article or in the school/uni article. violet/riga (t) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fight song Notability is sufficiently covered by the music notability guidelines. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are notable fight songs. Group29 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Individual fight songs may be notable enough for their own articles (case by case with verifiable sources). AUTiger » talk 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Individual fight songs may be notable enough for their own articles as long as their sources are verifiable. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but they most be notable on their own. --T-rex 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are notable. Any fight song which has an article of more than stub-length is likely to qualify as notable (and some of those could be expanded), but most are not notable. Horologium (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is highly likely that they are non-notable and certainly none should have their own article. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes As Stifle says, it's highly likely that they are non-notable, but it is a possibility. They are also near impossible to verify and are subject to change. Some songs might be notable (famous ones for larger, older schools), but most won't (obscure ones, for smaller, newer schools) and they may also be subject to change from year-to-year. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable?, Sometimes, move discussion? No. WP:LYRICS and other related guidelines adequately cover the potential issues for lyric inclusion. Zedla (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is likely that most fight songs are notable. However, most of the existing articles are not presently written in a way that establishes such notability. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a place for fight song information in the article about the institution itself? Group29 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes some institutions have very well known songs Group29 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes All fight song titles may be noted in their respective university articles (and/or athletics/tradition sub-article) as an attribute (just like motto, school colors, mascot, etc). Of course, any additional information about the fight song must be verifiable. AUTiger » talk 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes All fight song titles may be noted in their respected articles, their associated athletics program, or university article depending on how notable/important the song is to the article subject's history. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes A brief mention is appropriate, with a link to a separate article if the song is notable. Horologium (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes. In the team's article is better if it has one. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes. Per the above. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a place, in the sense of restrained/minimal fair-use and appropriate references and commentary on the song when it is non-trivial. Zedla (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A fight song is an integral part of a school's traditions. It's not likely that a large section of the article would need to be dedicated to the fight song nor would a trivial mention be appropriate. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do fight song lyrics belong in the article about the fight song? Group29 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I do not agree with a hard and fast rule about where lyrics should be stored. That debate does not belong within the context of a subset of songs. Articles currently contain public domain lyrics. Group29 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Note that a cursory look over the Pac 10 fight songs shows several to be likely copyright violations with lyrics. Group29 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Subject to copyright limitations and importance to the specific institution/fight song, inclusion of lyrics excerpts or sometimes full lyrics may be justified. AUTiger » talk 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

does it add to the article - sometimes the lyrics are helpful to make a better article, sometimes they are superfluous. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If in public domain, leave it be. Copyvios, delete. The option to WikiSource should be to the discretion of the editor. In this case, WikiSource can make a copy of the lyrics, but unless the original WP article looks OK without the lyrics, otherwise I wouldn't advise a complete move to WikiSource where the lyrics would no longer be on the original article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No - there is no need for full song lyrics to be in any wikipedia article (link to wikisource if no copyright problems) --T-rex 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Most are copyright violations, and none of them are essential to providing context, other than brief quotations. Under no circumstances is there a need to republish the entire song; an external link to the university (or the university's sports program) is sufficient. Horologium (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. As others have pointed out, the vast majority are copyrighted. The ones that aren't just don't add enough to the article to justify the risk that we'll get the copyright wrong. (And if you are absolutely sure about copyright, WikiSource is a better destination anyway.) Rossami (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

N/A. The fight songs should not have an article as they are almost exclusively non-notable, so this question doesn't arise. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case that consensus is that some songs should have articles, then lyrics should not be included at all if copyrighted, and should only be briefly quoted if not (with a link to Wikisource in the latter case). Stifle (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not allowed for normal songs and will likely violate copyright. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No per (C) reasons mentioned. Zedla (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not, unless a small part of the lyrics needs to be quoted in relation to a comment made in the article (see Aggie War Hymn). An external link or Wikisource, whichever is more appropriate, should be used to direct the reader to the complete lyrics. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If notable and in public domain. There are certainly examples of notable fight songs (The Victors, Notre Dame Victory March, Boomer Sooner, Fight On, off the top of my head). -TheMile (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Should consensus be to move lyrics to Wikisource, I would hope the removing editors take the time to actually do this and add a link instead of just deleting them. -TheMile (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (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.