 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Other versions?
editIf there are other versions of Glass Enclosure by artists other than Powell, I think the structure of this article (particularly the infobox) should be changed. If that were the case, I'd delete the following infobox sections:
- from the album 'The Amazing Bud Powell, Vol. 2'
- recorded
- (probably) genre
- length
- label
- and producer(s)
Let me know what you think.
–Adamilo (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- The normal way of doing things is to have the infobox for the most notable or best-known version: see Template:Infobox song. That's what's in place now, so it shouldn't be changed. Also, other versions shouldn't be mentioned unless they've received coverage in reliable sources: see WP:SONGCOVER. EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree for this particular song. I do have one example for my own clarification: Autumn Leaves. The "Other versions" section in this article doesn't abide to WP:SONGCOVER, correct?
- I also understand that there's a template for the infobox, but if it makes it confusing for a reader then why include the information? Since jazz standards and popular songs are performed and recorded by many, why should the original recording have precedent over others? I've seen many cases in which the original recording wasn't as popular than a later rendition. –Adamilo (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Lots of song articles use more than one infobox if there's a successful version that wasn't the original one, although I'm not fond of that. Others put the most successful one in the infobox. Autumn Leaves: for me it doesn't meet SONGCOVER: I prefer to remove everything that hasn't been in a major chart or received meaningful text coverage in sources. But opinion varies: User:Vmavanti adds sources where he can find versions mentioned and deletes others that are listed but unsourced, so he'll have a different take. EddieHugh (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Songs are a problem. I don't bother with them much anymore after a lot of wrestling.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Songs are a problem. I don't bother with them much anymore after a lot of wrestling.
- Lots of song articles use more than one infobox if there's a successful version that wasn't the original one, although I'm not fond of that. Others put the most successful one in the infobox. Autumn Leaves: for me it doesn't meet SONGCOVER: I prefer to remove everything that hasn't been in a major chart or received meaningful text coverage in sources. But opinion varies: User:Vmavanti adds sources where he can find versions mentioned and deletes others that are listed but unsourced, so he'll have a different take. EddieHugh (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also understand that there's a template for the infobox, but if it makes it confusing for a reader then why include the information? Since jazz standards and popular songs are performed and recorded by many, why should the original recording have precedent over others? I've seen many cases in which the original recording wasn't as popular than a later rendition. –Adamilo (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)