Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 20

Three NSONGS changes proposed.

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.

---

NSONGS is quite restrictive and paragraph one is contradictory as a single paragraph, I suspect a line-feed has been dropped somewhere along the way.

1. Add a line feed (new paragraph) in the first paragraph, these are two separate thoughts. Without the line-feed, the guidance infers that album reviews are not independent.
2. Add the Film qualifier to NSONGS and remove it from NALBUMS if necessary. Why should an Album inherit notability from a single song, when the song itself cannot have an article?
3. A professional review from an RS source, especially when the song is mentioned in prose should count for evidence of notability.
4. Note: I've added "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts" to Reference 1.

The improved section would read as follows:

Songs

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.

added line-feed and bolded text Coverage of a song in the context of an album review alone does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
4. add - copied directly from NALBUMS The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions.

• Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
• Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and Wikibooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content.

References

There is an AfC discussion going on at Draft:Never Gonna Be the Same Again that might interest commentators -- (I have a COI -- friends on the song -- therefore AfC). Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Plenty of reads on the 13th, but no comments here. Implementing per WP:BOLD since there has been no objection. If there is a problem, it can be reverted and discussed here. 009o9 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to revert you because I don't think 2 days is quite enough time to think about the change. I am also concerned that this change is the result of a discussion about one song article, rather than a general overview of all songs. Shall we leave for, say, 7 clear days' before changing? FWIW I was still contemplating your proposals when you changed the guideline. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Richhoncho, splitting that first paragraph has been bothering me for over a year (a different song) and allowing an album article to gain notability from a film theme song, when the song itself cannot seems ridiculous to me. Glad to see somebody is considering my proposal. Seven days works for me, but I would prefer a consensus. Wondering where everybody has been since the holidays? Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW: I created the song article that is being discussed on November 12, 2013. This discussion is about defects in the Guideline and I feel that the article (Draft:Never Gonna Be the Same Again) is a good article to demonstrate the defects in NSONGS. There is no hurry to get the song article published and about 50% of the articles about the film include the theme song (and a few others) as a notable topic(s). Fixing the Guideline will probably cause the song article to be published, but really only because we would be eliminating loopholes (used by AfDers) -- the topic is notable and there is enough coverage for an interesting article (more than a stub). Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I read the proposed changes but was surprised that it was pushed into the guideline without acceptance. I certainly don't think the change is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Walter Görlitz The squeaky wheel get the oil and after two days, I figured I would get a response with a BOLD edit, fully expecting it to be reverted as per this discussion.

Perhaps you can explain how an Album WP:INHERITs notability from a song? Further, why should an independent RS album review should be lumped together (same paragraph) with non-independent sources? In this case, the author/reviewer has clearly noted the song in his prose, i.e., "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts". [1] In the AfC discussion, the reviewer is claiming that reviews are not independent RS, I contend that the guidance is missing a paragraph break, and misinterpreted due to this typo. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• The third point is quite problematic. "in a medium that is notable"? That would contradict WP:INHERENT. I also don't understand why WP:BLP1E would be linked. Those are policies about people, not songs. Mkdw^talk 02:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mkdw: Point #4 is what I believe you are speaking to, and it is copied directly from WP:NALBUMS. The relevant guidance in WP:BLP1E is The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. An album or single release could be considered an event. If the song has continuing exposure in notable mediums, the recording has additional evidence that it is notable. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but BLP1E is still not about events. It's about people known for one event. I assume NALBUMS is trying to draw a parallel to albums know for one event, but we should just use WP:EVENTS. In any case, this is perhaps a stronger argument that NALBUMS needs it removed, but likewise it shouldn't be included in new policy or guidelines either. Mkdw^talk 21:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Seeking wider consensus, I've tracked down the 2013 RfC, regarding the change to the (almost?) current reading of NSONGS. Since they were interested participants in the RfC I am pinging -- I think I have them all. User:Gongshow, User:J04n, Kww, User:Aircorn, User:J04n, User:Mkdw, User:Lukeno94, User:Calvin999, User:Ritchie333, User:Richhoncho, User:Lil-unique1, User:78.26, User:BlueMoonset, User:Sionk, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:CycloneGU, User:Cncmaster, User:Matticusmadness, User:BlueMoonset, User:Shadowjams Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So, let me touch on what I believe I'm seeing as the matter here.

Reviews are not independent: Weeeell, that's a grey area really, and I'd suggest that the reviewers are checked for their own notability and any links to the subject, if there's none, what's the problem?

Album Inherits Notability: I don't really agree. While the album could be mentioned in the song's article, unless the album can stand on its own two feet, let it have passing mentions, if the album has, say, two or three (at least) article level songs, then I'd consider looking at if the album can stand on its own article.

Line Feed: Whatever that is, if the first two points kinda conflict with each other, one or the other needs a reword really, not two separate paragraphs.

Did I miss anything? I kinda skimmed this a bit. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 12:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Matticusmadness The NSONGS guidance, as it currently reads, is routinely interpreted to decline song/single articles in favor of album articles in Articles for Creation. Ultimately, this inheritance is currently local-policy caused by the defect(s) in NSONGS.

1. Even though you've just skimmed the proposal, it appears that you agree with me -- that the current guidelines are backwards and the album should have to earn it's notability, not inherit it from one notable song.
2. In addition to breaking the poorly composed paragraph into two paragraphs, I've added the word alone. I believe these two additions sufficiently clarify the guidance on album reviews and you seem to agree with the proposal on this point also. (P.S. A Line feed is an ASCII character = old-school for print a blank line.)

Thanks for your input, Cheers!009o9 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm mostly thinking out loud here, this is purely for discussion. I'm fine with the line feed addition. Regarding "medium", when I hear that term, as a music collector I think of "medium" in terms of shellac, vinyl, cassette-tape, wax cylinder, etc, so is there a better nomenclature? I'm also not sure that being the theme of a network show strongly implies notability. Think of some mid 1970s show that was cancelled after 7 episodes. The article would probably never develop beyond The "Theme from 'Glark'" was the theme song from the television show 'Glark'. I'm still thinking about the compilation album criteria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@User talk:78.26 Yes, like I said, that passage was copy pasted from WP:NALBUMS, and the qualifier references BIO regarding the longevity of the notability. I believe that the term "medium" is the singular form of "media," so I'm not sure if we will be able to find more concise nomenclature that encompasses all presentation platforms. (I.e., to include non-hard copy medium like airwaves, radio, digital etc.) Finally, I think the "stub article should not be created" caveat/para covers the Theme from Glark example. Cheers!009o9 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

While the squeaky wheel may get the grease, that does not apply to modifying guidelines. All of the changes I have made to the guideline have only been done after discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A quick read of WP:CONACHIEVE reveals: Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

Here is WP:CONLIMITED which addresses guidelines and other advice pages: As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny.

I discussed these (minor) changes on the talk page two days before making the change, there were plenty of views of the talk page on the 13th?, without comment, so I went BOLD and treated it as a non-controversial edit. I also made a prior notification (on the talk page) that I fully expected my edit to be reverted. Finally, I've tracked down the original RfC from three years ago and invited all of those participants to to discuss here.

So is your only objection to the proposal that my edit did not follow your interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS? Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think this point should be collapsed and it's a disservice to the other editor you're supposed to be working with to call their comment "off-topic". Especially when you mentioned WP:BOLD and implementing the changes back of a lack of objection above. They're likely responding to how this change was proposed and attempted to be implemented earlier and wanting to ensure you address these concerns in your proposal process. To give you a sense of the process for a major guideline change, I made a recommendation to NSONG some time ago and it took weeks upon weeks of consensus gathering. I do not believe due diligence was served by waiting a mere two days before deciding WP:BOLD was going to apply here -- especially when it was to resolve an AFC issue you were having. The change needs to reflect current community practices and the only way you'll obtain that is to approach the community in a broad process for input. Mkdw^talk 20:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mkdw I collapsed section because this is the second time (see above) this editor has complained about my BOLD edit which is within the WP:CONSENSUS guideline. Neither comment has been on topic, with the exception of an unsupported preference in the first. Additionally, the Bold Edit conversation could have been continued under the first thread and my response. No reason to start another top level discussion.

I've explained my logic twice now, turning this discussion into a wall of text over a gentle prod to get the discussion started is really unnecessary. I realize these things take time, but 30 some editors read the talk page on the 13th without the decency of just posting an Oppose. The sooner this gets started the sooner it will be finished. I've changed the heading to be more descriptive. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the collapse this part of the discussion. WP:TPOC explicitly states, "editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates — these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors". I've stated my objection above when I said I don't think it should be collapsed, and you've actually now gone ahead and moved my comment into it. If an uninvolved party feels the need to moderate and refactor this discussion with the use of those templates, that can happen, but it shouldn't be for you to make this call especially when the comment is directed at you. Mkdw^talk 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment. The addition from NALBUMS is inappropriate. An album is a collection that is available collectively, whereas the medium of a song could just be unrecorded performances. There were songs long before audio recording! This is irrespective of any further comments I might make. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not convinced of Point 4 in its entirely. Especially the line "performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." appears vague to me. That implies that if a song is performed on a late-night talk show, it could be notable. The note on a redirect after it is perhaps not strong enough. I would question its inclusion at all.Karst (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Karst If that is the case, then we have exposed a problem in NALBUMS where the content is copied from. The only place I can think of where the entire album would be aired on television is a PBS feature, which are generally produced in cooperation with the artist, so the independence of the source would come into question. We are very unlikely to hear an album on the Tonight Show. I don't understand @Richhoncho's comment. A song may or may not be a part of a collection, a lot of singles today are simply one or more versions (remixes) of the same song. The passage from NALBUMS does not preclude notable unrecorded songs from inclusion, it merely states that the rotation or feature may be evidence of notability, but this should not be the only claim.

Anyway, if the passage is a problem in NSONGS then it is a bigger problem in NALBUMS, an album is a collection of recordings, not "The recording". An album is highly unlikely to be theme song, an album is generally 40 minutes / 10 tracks of music. Cheers!009o9 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I am merely refusing to equate a "song article" with a "record" which is correct. A song can and often exists without recording, whereas the essence of a record album is a collection of different songs purchased as one item, Often with a record company in cooperation with the artist (!), which is why it is in NALBUMS. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Album features on VH1 for instance (for instance Pink Floyd: Behind the Wall) would apply in that context. But all that is a different discussion that should be on WP:NALBUMS. I'm still not convinced that #4 clarifies anything in relation to WP:NSONGS. Karst (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The passage does not contain the word "record", nor does it contain the term "record" in the context of the old 12 vinyl media as slang. Even so, a record in that context, contains one or more recordings, which is the term used in the passage. Similarly, when music went to cassette, they were called tapes and CDROMS are called discs. The passage addresses "The recording" which was a theme song or featured in a film or television performance. The passage is obviously addressing a song, not an album/vinyl record. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It opens with the words, "The recording was performed in a medium that is notable..." My bold. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and a recording is a transaction within a record (ledger), this accounting terminology goes back hundreds of years. "The recording" is obviously the song. Further, recorded music dates back to the middle-ages, the medium being notation on paper. pottery or even stone. The term recording is not specific with regards to the media, only that it has been recorded. Chers!009o9 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if I have got it wrong, then so will many other readers who will not think it is a ledger entry. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be clearer like this? The song was broadcast in a medium that is notable... Cheers1 009o9 (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to save a paragraph that both Karst and I feel should not be added. Perhaps wait and see if other editors have a different opinion. FWIW "Broadcast" is no better. All that matters is the song is performed and is notable with reliable sources, therefore this addition (which is to signify what is an album) is not appropriate for individual songs. As such, it adds nothing to guideline, but confusion. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody else is having a problem with it and Karst's reservation is understandable. At the very least, an official release, a mention in the prose of an RS review and being used as a theme song for a popular film or television show, should be concrete evidence that the song is notable. This needs to be concisely spelled out for the crew at AfC and AfD. Finally, can you please point out the verbiage in #4 that says the passage has anything to do with an album? Sans being placed in NALBUMS for some inexplicable reason? 009o9 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

. This is already covered. It says quite clearly that RS must be about the subject, not a mention in an article about something else, WP:GNG makes the Three Blind Mice (band) reference. Your Article 4 succeeds only in muddying those waters. Also, your argument is about article namespace and not content at Wikipedia. Separating non-notable theme songs from popular shows is not doing any reader any favours, but merging with the band, album, discography, or film/TV it comes from could be helpful. "Nobody is having problem with it" is disengenious. See above. Now wait and see what others might say. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: how is the "Any of the following factors ..." being used? If the "subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works" requirement still has to be met, what difference does it make? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@[[User:Ojorojo: I believe that this was part of the original RfC that instituted substantial changes. RfC 009o9 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If I am reading the RfC (thanks for the link) correctly, the three existing "factors" (charts, awards, covers) do not expand, define, or clarify notability requirements. According to Gongshow's statement under "Support 1. Support", "song-specific criteria (e.g., charts, awards, covers) ["factors"] are helpful guides that 'suggest that a song or single may be notable'". So it seems they are little more than examples, because the RfC added the qualifier "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria", which includes "subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works". We could come up with a long list of "helpful guides that suggest", but it wouldn't make any change to the notability requirement. "Sold more than a million copies of sheet music", "recorded in more than 20 languages", etc. don't mean anything if the songs aren't the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Ojorojo Yes, it seems like a lot of projects would like to provide a required number of references and/or limit templates only to specific artists etc., but I'm pretty sure that this runs afoul of WP:ADVICEPAGE and WP:OWN. I think that NSONGS is pretty fair with the clarifications proposed here, the problem with AfC and AfD is that currently, RS reviews and televised music are not considered evidence of notability for the actual song, but allowed for the album. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Richhoncho: Articles have topics and subtopics, article titles and other sentences have (a) subject.[2] this error in terminology is pervasive throughout the Notability guidelines. In the first bullet of the WP:GNG we have: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (Emphasis mine) For the "Three Blind Mice" example, the band in not notable as this is a trivial mention, but if you add the second sentence, the "mention" passes WP:ANALYSIS (the author's "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts")...

• In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice. He still plays a mean and serious saxophone.[3]

Now, we have a non-trivial secondary source, the author has injected analysis, noting that Bill Clinton is still a serious saxophone player. This alone does not make Clinton a notable saxophone player, but in combination with national appearances and other writings it does make him a notable musician/sax player.

Futher, project pages advice/guidelines pages, such as this one, must take special care to conform with site-wide guidelines and policies WP:ADVICEPAGE. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Since we are having a difference of opinion proposed item #4 (copied directly from NALBUMS), I decided to see who added the film and television item to NALBUMS. DIFF The edit summary is "(→‎Recordings{{Anchor|Albums}}: adding per talk page.)" I'm searching the Talk page archives for "The recording was performed in a media that is notable" and "The recording was performed" without result. Even searching "November 2014" talk archives, I'm honestly not finding the consensus discussion that compelled User:Walter Görlitz to make such a major edit.

It appears that the verbiage has been in the "Musicians and ensembles" section since the guideline was drafted in 2006 Here is a very early DIFF and this placement seems valid. I still have no idea why an album would inherit notability from a theme song. The song, "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" was probably (re)released on 10 albums. Should we create 10 album articles because the song is notable, or one song/single article and maintain the additional releases and notable cover-versions within the song article? Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears there was an RFC at Template talk:Track listing/Archive_15. Mkdw^talk 22:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, nothing about "film" or "television" ("tele") mentioned in that RfC. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment continued The disconnect here is that WP:NALBUMS shorcut is not in the "Albums" subsection, this is quite misleading. NALBUMS is located in the parent section "Recordings". Additionally, the (root level) "Songs" section (aka WP:SONGS), is outside of the "Recordings" section with nothing to indicate (like a See Also #Recordings) that the "Recordings" section also applies to NSONGS. (AfC and AfD reviewers simply look at NSONGS, without considering the other seven line-items in the "Recordings" section.)

NALBUMS is an extremely poor choice for a shortcut to "Recordings" and should probably be moved to the albums section. The "Songs" section, if it was created for un-recorded songs, no longer represents that, and it looks like the entire guideline should be reworked for section placement and content. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: since a !vote is desired, and I am definitely not in favor of adding the proposed fourth point into the list of factors that suggest a song may be notable (the "medium that is notable" one), I thought I'd add this here. I'm dubious about the other three changes as well, including the new addition to reference 1; under the circumstances, I'll oppose the whole set. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

User:BlueMoonset If you read the section, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings, from the beginning, you will find that Songs are already covered by #4 and several others. The section reads "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings..." Just a few hours ago, I realized that NSONGS is completely extraneous and probably should have never been created (separately from the Recordings section anyway). It only confuses the legacy guidance provided in the Recordings section that already addresses singles and other recordings. Additionally, if you look at the definition of Non-trivial in reference 2, you'll see that my addition to reference 1 clarifies that the author of the referenced work must provide some type of thoughtful input about the song. This is taken from the definition of what is required to constitute a secondary source: It [a secondary source] contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources WP:ANALYSIS. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I very much doubt you're going to get buy-in on eliminating NSONGS, perhaps because you haven't thought out all the angles yet, but you could always start a new topic with that proposal. Since you do believe NSONGS is extraneous then there's no point in pursuing any changes to it, so you might as well close off this discussion. Best of luck. As a footnote, you don't seem to have considered that fact that not every song would be a single or from an album. There's a reason it's NSONGS and not NSINGLES. (Number 3 is clearly more about songs than about singles.) Finally, why do you always assume people have not previously read the things you point them to? Just because we may not agree does not mean we are doing so from ignorance. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

User:BlueMoonset

• By extraneous, I mean "separate from the object to which it is attached." Is this the way you understood it?
• Regarding ignorance: The Wikipedia changes from day to day, I've found several guidelines that have substantially changed since I began editing and I recall I've read them, but I don't recall if that was a quick look-up or a detailed read. Then there is the difference in the context of word meanings -- such as extraneous. It was User:Richhoncho who took a very narrow definition of the word "record" in this discussion. He was reading "record" in the context of a vinyl LP is slang (record album). It appears that it took 800 words to get him to realize this mistake. There are tons of word misinterpretations throughout the community. For instance, NSONGS uses the word "subject" and the GNG uses the word "topic." This ambiguity leads many reviewers to believe that if the topic is not in the title, the reference can't be used for notability. "Significant coverage" and "Non-trivial" are also terms that are misinterpreted in notability discussions. (Perhaps purposefully/belligerently to win the debate?)
• Regarding this proposal: Yes, I will be closing this discussion directly, in favor of a merge RfC to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Singles and songs. There is good and usable content in NSONGS, but not as a stand alone section IMHO. There are some other defects in the guideline that are also very confusing, like NALBUMS not being in the Albums section. You can see what I will be proposing here User:009o9/Draft NSONGS RFC. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2016 (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.

My recent removal

I just removed a sentence about WP:CORP in the lede that was added in January of this year without a prior discussion here to do so. There is not a consensus that record labels fall under WP:CORP, and there are good reasons why we would not want to hew to that ill-fitting standard; indeed, a lengthy discussion about this, during which the person who introduced that sentence to WP:MUSIC argued pro and I argued con, can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Four Inc. This AFD proceeding may well have been the reason why that editor added that sentence, but I don't keep this page on my watchlist, else I would have reverted it much sooner. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Chubbles. If I had noticed this addition in January, I too would have reverted, for similar reasons. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that record labels should fall under WP:NMEDIA, in effect they are publishers that use a different distribution medium. It appears the WP:NMEDIA guideline should be updated to encompass labels and taken through the official WP:PROPOSAL process. 009o9 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Recordings vs Songs

I added a "see also" hat to #Recordings (to NSONGS) which was reverted with the comment "As discussed, a recording is not a song!" by @Richhoncho:. In that discussion (above) the editor admitted that he has a incomplete understanding of the term "recording" which is a single item contained within a record or ledger (traditionally an accounting term). When a song (or any piece of music) is recorded, it is by definition a recording.

Can somebody please explain to me the following:

1. How a recorded song is not a recording?
2. How a song (that is not a recording) becomes ranked on national or significant music or sales charts?
3. How does song (that is not a recording) win a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award?
4. How does song (that is not a recording), become independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups?

IMHO: Everything in NSONGS, is already covered in Notability (music)#Recordings which reads: "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings..."

Perhaps there is some obscure definition of "Recording" that I don't know about somewhere? 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 23:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Responses:

1. A recorded song is a recording.
2. Sheet music.
3. Print music can win awards without being a recording.
4. Their arrangements can be written down and distributed.

I won't offer my humble opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Technically, sheet music is the original recorded music, though not a recording in the modern sense. While it is possible that sheet music could win an award or be distributed, it would be technically impossible to establish notability (multiple independent sources) of a piece written in this century without a recording, and NSONGS does not address this case.

If the song, is also a recording, why wouldn't a "See also" to Notability (music)#Recordings be appropriate? 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 06:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A song is a piece of music with words. A recording may be a method of delivery a performance of a song, but not necessarily. Your edit was akin to redirecting "beans" to "can" because it's a can of beans, thereby devaluing "beans" to the method of delivery. (Musical) albums are different because they are a collection of recordings marketed as a single unit.

As per discussion above you did not have consent for your edit and it was quite appropriate for me to revert.

PS. Amendments to NSONGS will not change the refusal to move Draft:Never Gonna Be the Same Again to article namespace because the song has not been discussed in a separate article as the primary topic, thereby failing WP:GNG, too. You were told you could add your work into the main article, but no, you wanted article namespace. Or is it your intention to try and change GNG too?--Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So if music is an instrumental piece, it's not a song? I don't think any dictionary would agree with that definition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

OED definition of song: "A short poem or other set of words set to music or meant to be sung". Collins: "a piece of music, usually employing a verbal text, composed for the voice, esp one intended for performance by a soloist". --Michig (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Partial definitions make me laugh. OED also states "1.2A musical composition suggestive of a song."http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/song also: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/song Sorry. It doesn't fly. Any definition that limit it to lyrics are simply incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure the value of argueing about the meaning of the word "song" here, although I consider my definition above is pedantically correct (see Lied), I am happy for it to include a melody without words. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I actually clarified with the "See also" when the previous edit went unchallenged without consensus. I guess that "can of beans" and "recording of a song" could be an analogy, but but that doesn't change the fact that a recorded song fits the definition found in Notability (songs)#Recordings.

Additionally, the GNG does not read "discussed in a separate article as the primary topic," the GNG reads:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
--And --
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The number of people around here that cite their misreading of the GNG astounds me.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz brings up another important fact, the term "Songs" could be interpreted to mean only music with lyric. In that case, instrumentals would not fit NSONGS. The only purpose I can see for the existence of NSONGS is so that it can be used to violate WP:CONLIMITED. As written, NSONGS certainly does not clarify the guidance. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Modifications to conform with WP:GNG

Item #1 in both sections #Criteria for musicians and ensembles and #Recordings do not conform to the WP:GNG. The following change will bring the guidance into compliance with the wider consensus per WP:CONLIMITED and the fourth paragraph in WP:PROJPAGE regarding Projects.

#Has been the subject a topic of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.

• Ammended per discussion -- incorporate the actual GNG verbiage -- proposal to also include minor adjustments where "a topic" has been mislabeled "the subject" was later discovered, specifically NSONGS and NSONG note [1].

1. Has been the subject a topic of non-trivial,[1][2] significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.^{[Note 1]}

The GNG clearly distinguishes the difference between "a topic" and "the subject" in terms of notability.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
--And --
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

My edits seem to be the only ones that are getting reverted, so I figured I'd better discuss the edit here first rather than making the obvious correction. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support: The guidelines should comply with GNG and CONLIMITED.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I support the amendment as well, as that clarifies things more.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose current proposal. Either change to "Has received significant non-trivial coverage in multiple, non-trivial, published works ..." as being closer to GNG, or don't change as current guideline does not contradict the spirit of GNG. LK (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Support the proposal as amended. LK (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@LK In practice, the current guideline does violate contradict the spirit of the GNG. The problem is that the term "subject" is misconstrued in AfC and AfD discussions. Some editors feel that the Wikipedia subject must be "the" main topic of source material -- that the source article is to be completely about the subject, else it is disqualified as evidence of notability. This errant interpretation invariably leads back to (several) Project notability guidelines that do not conform with the definition of terms in the GNG.

You might note that the GNG has no less than five bulleted and quoted definitions, I guess they never imagined that we could screw up something as fundamental as the difference between "the subject" and "a topic." Cheers! 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 03:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the current proposal can be interpreted to mean that a passing mention is enough. I'll support an amended proposal. LK (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@LK There are two well written footnotes(NSongs notes) in the article addressing non-trivial, however the term " The subject" would need to be replaced with "A topic" in [1].

1. Has been a topic of multiple, non-trivial,[1][2] published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it."

I'm very much in favor of having concrete definitions. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 04:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Further examination reminds me that NSONGS has the same problem with the misuse of the term "subject" in the first sentence. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 04:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment@User:3family6 I've amended the proposal above, verbiage much closer to the GNG. @LK I noticed from rereading your first comment that the existing text deviates unnecessarily from the GNG, should be more conforming now.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. My understanding of the proposal is that it removes the restrictions on press releases, record label sources (a non-independent source, if ever there was one), and “Coverage of a song in the context of an album” and as such extends the restrictions contained in GNG. With consent, NSONGS can apply greater restrictions and more detailed guidelines, but cannot extend the limits set by GNG.
For clarity and for comparison :-

Proposed wording.
Has been the subject a topic of non-trivial significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
Present wording.
Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
GNG wording.
If a topic has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
--Richhoncho (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This proposal primarily concerns item #1 of WP:BAND and WP:NALBUM. The guidance in, independent of, would not allow press releases or any other self-published material as evidence of notability. The only change to WP:NSONGS proposed here would be:

• Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject a topic of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.

Similarly, in NSONG note [1] would be modified to read:

• The "subject"A "topic" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

The goal here is to ensure that the local guideline does not override the GNG's "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 08:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose attempts to lower notability requirements for music articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ojorojo I'm not sure that you are aware of the troubling atmosphere in AfC and AfD. I took a look at a couple of song articles that you are affiliated with and estimate that they could not possibly make it through the current AfC process. They would also not survive an AfD without a lot of sourcing work. The song articles are great, and of historical value IMHO, but the sourcing does not establish notability. I don't want to give the deletionists ammunition by naming those articles here.

Additionally, WP:CONLIMITED addresses your concern about "lowering" notability requirements, the mis-wording in the NMUSIC project guideline has the effect of elevating the requirements, which is not allowable unless the action has been taken through WP:PROPOSAL (I.e. the GNG does not support that the subject of the Wikipedia article, must also be the primary topic (aka "subject") of the cited material -- which is a common misconception in AfC and AfD.)

(WP:CONLIMITED)
Level of consensus
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.

Not trying to lower the notability requirement, trying to take ammunition away from deletionists by correcting ill-worded passages.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 18:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Specialized notability guidelines exist for two reasons: because potential article topics can't meet GNG directly per GNG's rules, or because they would meet GNG per GNG's rules but that that bar of notability is too low under the circumstances. If my band gets 20 mentions about its song on local radio, or does a local interview or local festival performance, that doesn't make my band or my song notable, even though I've gotten GNG-level coverage. Why? Because the sheer number of bands, artists, etc. at local levels world-wide is enormous, so we have to have some other definition of cutoff. Bear in mind also that we have a lot of issues about "the spirit vs. the letter" of the NBAND guideline - if I meet 1/12 of the guidelines, am I notable? If the one thing is a Grammy or Juno, sure, but as we get down into judgment calls on what constitutes "national rotation", it becomes harder to justify. Therefore, changing the wording here to mimic GNG (which it isn't supposed to do anyway) would dramatically lower the bar, because if you got enough local/regional coverage for your cover band, you're on Wikipedia, despite having no original output whatsoever, because you met one guideline out of 12. That's not the level of quality anyone is going to expect out of Wikipedia if it;s going to have any sort of credibility whatsoever. MSJapan (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @MSJapan: The problem is that there are misconceptions in AfC and AfD, such as "the song must be the main topic" of the coverage, where as the GNG requires, a topic of independent RS coverage. Here is the test case in question, it is a theme song from a film that is still getting coverage (for its music among other attributes) 25 years after it flopped in the box office and later went on to be a Halloween classic on ABC and cable networks. User:009o9/Never Gonna Be the Same Again The AfC reviewers take one look at the three line items in NSONGS and decline (ignoring/declining to consider the Recordings section's seven line items). Had the song been released as a single, it would be a slam dunk IMHO. The film article itself, Teen Witch, still gets 532 reads per day.[4] 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • If it's the name of the article, it certainly does need to be the main topic. So the only misconception here is yours. Looking at your test case, only one of the four quotes is directly and only about the song in question; the rest is trivial; naming it as overall "good music" in context of the film. I'm honestly not sure if we take AllMusic as RS for quotes, but that is irrelevant, because of WP:NOTINHERITED, so the song won't inherit from the movie. Otherwise, you're pushing for a song to be considered notable when it meets none of the criteria in WP:NSONG. Moreover, its original album doesn't meet WP:NALBUM; it never charted, it never won an award, it never got coverage, never got airplay, and so on and so forth. Four quotes does not GNG make, and it's not a question of "line items." you're trying to change policy only because of your pet article, and that is WP:POINTY and probably WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as well. I'd also point out that your accepted wording below means your article still doesn't meet the necessary level of coverage. MSJapan (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose Amendment

Since there is disagreement about using the words "subject" and "topic", perhaps we can move forward by removing both the words from the guideline:

Has received significant coverage in multiple, non-trivial,[1][2] reliable sources that are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.^{[Note 1]}

Would this be acceptable to everyone here? LK (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Using the WP:N defined term (significant coverage) would certainly be a step in the right direction, but a footnote would also need adjustment:

NSONG notes

1. The "subject" Significant coverage of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

The term should also be adjusted from the Nsongs notes item 1 as above. (Wikipedia articles have (a) subject, news articles do not have this limitation and can cover several topics. I.e., the music, the wardrobe, the performers, etc.) Thanks for proposing -- I would certainly Agree as long as we do both for completeness. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - so we're going to require significant coverage as per GNG's definition, but we want to then adjust the footnote so that mentions in a larger context are considered significant coverage? That makes no sense, because that is definitely ccontradictory. The disagreement is not about "subject" and "topic", it's about what constitutes coverage and what represents an article, disguised as semantics because someone didn't get their pet article kept in mainspace. MSJapan (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support YES we're going to require significant coverage as per GNG's definition and the note defines what it means. Makes perfect sense to me. The note sells if for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is an ongoing discussion at COIN about this process (and others), indicating a consensus that paid editors should not be altering guidelines, and there is now an ANI which is going to touch on this, so I think we should hold off on proposing or amending anything at this juncture. I don't necessarily disagree with changes to policy, but I am concerned here both with why a change is being requested and with the initial requestor's clearly stated vested interest for requesting the change repeatedly. I'd like to see this tabled pending outcomes of other actions, and revisited when there isn't a particular article in mind for it. MSJapan (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• 009o9 has now been indef-blocked. I would therefore like to see this particular thread closed. If there is truly an issue, I have no problem with restarting the discussion but the proposal needs to made by a user who isn't trying to change guidelines simply to allow inclusion of their own material. Does that sound reasonable? MSJapan (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sunflower Bean

I'm on the fence on the notability of this act, because they only meet criterion 1, and I'm feeling that "substantial" is questionable, as the definitely good sources NME and Rolling Stone are really brief album reviews, and the MTV source is an interview, as are many of the other sources, and I can't really gauge the RS on those other sources. Can someone take a look and see if it looks good, or if it just isn't up to meeting enough criteria to be notable? MSJapan (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

AllMusic gives their debut album Human Ceremony a thorough review[5] and notes it appeared on two Billboard charts.[6] It was released by Fat Possum Records, an "important indie label", who also re-released their earlier six song EP and a single.[7] They have toured the US and the UK and a 20 minute+ performance was broadcast on KEXP-FM (& the web).[8] I'd say it adds up to the group being notable. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that there's material, but I don't think it's usable or applicable, which is sort of the issue. I ignored the charts, because neither of them are explicitly listed as acceptable on WP:USCHARTS, so AFAIK, they cannot be used to meet the chart criterion. As for the label, I'm not familiar with Fat Possum, but from reading the article, judgment aside, I don't quite understand how they're an important indie label; I don't think we can base that statement solely on the fact that The Black Keys started there, and the label seems to be known as a blues label, not a rock label (though I'm not sure that matters). In short, it seems ambiguous at best. KEXP is a local public radio station, regardless of how they distribute content, and doesn't speak to "national rotation" per the criterion. There should be something out there for sourcing that is totally unambiguous and unimpeachable, and I just don't feel I'm seeing that here. MSJapan (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability: Others

I'ld like to discuss Criteria #5 in Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Others:

• Has been listed as a significant musical influence on a musician or composer who meets the above criteria.

A straightforward reading of this criteria means that if a musician, notable according to the "Others" criteria, names four or five major influences, this immediately makes them notable enough for standalone articles on Wikipedia. I think that's problematic – it smacks of notability being inherited. I suggest changing the wording to "has been named as a significant musical influence by several musicians or composers who meet the above criteria." LK (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about notability

I'm currently participating in a discussion over the notability of Dan Avidan, who is a member of two notable comedy music groups, Starbomb and Ninja Sex Party. The influence of Starbomb should not be judged by its article, since I recently created it because the group has two notable albums (Player Select and Starbomb (album)) - my intent is that information can be merged from those articles over time. My reason for mentioning that is that I don't want anyone to see that one group's page is more fleshed out and then automatically say that this should redirect to that one. Previously his article was a redirect to Ninja Sex Party, but it was recently created due to an offhand comment on an episode of Game Grumps, where he's been a host since 2013.

My basic question/concern is this: actors achieve independent notability once they have had major roles in notable productions (films, tv shows, etc). If a musician is a major member in two notable groups, shouldn't he be held under the same criteria? I don't think that it's particularly right that a musician would be denied an article if they've played a major role in more than one notable musical group. Ideally there would be individual coverage, but what happens in situations like this one where Avidan not only co-founded both music groups but also functions as a major members of each? I'm not talking about cases where someone plays only a cursory role in the founding of a group or is only on one or two songs (or just sits in for a few concerts), but cases where their role is decidedly important (major member, co-founder).

It just doesn't seem right that notability for musicians doesn't work in a similar fashion as it does for actors and that an article for someone who is in two groups that have individually and repeatedly hit national charts (Billboard for both, ARIA, UK Albums Chart for NSP) would fail notability guidelines that don't offhand seem to take membership in two notable musical groups this into consideration. I know that neither are the equivalent of the Beatles, but offhand they don't have to be - they should only have to pass notability guidelines for bands (and his role in them has to be major) in order to justify Avidan's notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. The main difference is when you indicate "major roles in notable productions". The press that actors get when they are in "notable productions" is much greater than what a musician will get for releasing a chart-topping album. If they're not reported on, they likely do not pass the threshold of notability. There are other elements involved, but that's one of the keys. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well.. if someone is in a prominent role for a notable band/group, that should count for something. I'm thinking more along the lines of someone who is a visible, long running member of a group or at the very least someone who was prominent in the founding of said group. For example, let's say that Slipknot had someone akin to Pete Best who was instrumental in setting up the band, to the point where the band would likely have never been formed if he wasn't there and if it did, it likely wouldn't have gone anywhere. The band members have even gone repeatedly on record saying this and there have been general articles about the band that repeatedly mention the guy, although this never led to people writing about him specifically. Meanwhile the guy has gone on to join another band that has gone on to become very notable, but all of the coverage for him is still in general relation to his new band. Eventually the guy goes on to do a third thing where he gets general mention in relation to The Thing, which also passes notability guidelines. Even though the guy never received specific, individual coverage, I'd like to say that being an integral part of three notable groups should count towards individual notability to some degree.

My comparison for this is that when we have actors we can use reviews that mention the actors to show notability. The sources don't specifically highlight the actor, but they're usable for notability purposes. I think that if we have enough sources that mention a performer in relation to a band, specifically sources that indicate that he's a prominent member (ie, he's persistently mentioned in media written about the band), that this should be something that could show notability. For example, if I was the long term drummer for Slipknot and also sang for My Chemical Romance, that should show individual notability if I was a prominent, visible member of both groups and not some backup singer.

In other words, I'm thinking that the guideline should take into account people who are/were prominent members of more than one notable band, even if their membership never went beyond the band's initial founding and startup. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability sufficient to merit a stand-alone article is not a measure of respect or fame. The only reason for a separate article is that it is helpful for users of Wikipedia to locate the information they seek. Thus the rationale would be- info about band members who are not notable for other reasons stays on the band page; info about a member of two bands would go under the bands pages unless they have a third non-band notability which couldn't be readily accommodated in the bands pages. In general I would prefer that there is a single, coherent, well-sourced page covering a band, its members, and its work, rather than a mish-mash of article stubs and repeated challenges on notability/deletion.Martinlc (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• However what about the cases where the bands contain only a few of the same people and are otherwise separate? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Martinlc. That's the first time I've seen "helpful" be a rationale for an article. It's always been notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I was working frm the WP:PAGEDECIDE policy which allows the merging and grouping of notable topics if that is helpful.Martinlc (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability of pre-1923 songs

Can someone who has been with this project a while suggest/add a hatnote or some other clarification into the Song Notability policy that reflects pre-1923 songs' notability is not necessarily reflected in current online available sources?

GLAM Pritzker has been working on adding articles to Wikipedia for WWI Songs. We know they are notable based on the number of sheet music printings; some of which are in our collection. We've been slowing posting the references to the right print publications and linking to the composers' and lyricists' Wikipedia articles.

We are slowly making progress on making this part of music history part in Wikipedia and any help we could receive will be appreciated. TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added this as a footnote: "The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day." Hopefully, this is not objectionable to anyone else in the wikiproject. LK (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC: "Songs written by" categories

I think we need a definition made and placed into policy. User:Richhoncho has made a number of "Songs written by <X>" categories, under the rationale that the songwriter is a defining characteristic of the song. I can see how this is the case with, say, Carl Perkins, but conversely, everything in Category:Songs written by Courtney Harrell has at least two other people who are not the performing artist, and from another CfD songwriter cat, Clarence Coffee, Jr.'s co-written Fun (Pitbull song) has seven songwriter cats listed. Neither of the songwriters I mentioned have articles. I had never heard of either of them until cleaning up an album article, where I was building a tracklist and trying to link credits. I don't entirely disagree with Rich's assessment, but I think there is a lower limit below which a song is no longer "defined by its songwriter", but "the songwriter" is simply WP:TRIVIA. WP:NONDEF also says "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining", and by and large, we don't credit songwriters in ledes. When songs are written under pseudonym (Prince is a good example), the songwriter could be argued as not defining the song for that very reason. A further issue is that most songwriters don't get press coverage in the first place, so one simply doesn't hear about them at all.

My proposal therefore is: "For a songwriter to be a defining category characteristic (per WP:DEFINING) of a song, the song must be written by a single songwriter (or established team of songwriters), provided the songwriter/team meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. MSJapan (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Meh. When only one user creates issues, I am more inclined to have a discussion with them and call out a user conduct issue, rather than try and formulate a hard-and-fast rule that may have unintended consequences. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, this isn't an issue that only affects this project, It affects many other sections of WP and should reach a wider audience than just this project as the theory being propounded by MSJapan is every category should have a supporting article - which is patently untrue. Here is one example of many similar discussions, this one was actually nominated by me, and you can make further searches to establish there is a consensus that songwriting credits are defining and most certainly not trivia. As for songwriters being trivia and non-defining, if the song isn't written it does not exist! Exactly how trivial is that? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, how about Happy Birthday (song) or House of the Rising Sun? We don't know for sure who wrote either of those songs (nor a lot of folk songs in general), so who wrote them is clearly trivial with respect to the song. MSJapan (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The songwriters for Happy Birthday are known, but irrespective of that, your argument has now moved to "if sometimes the information is not available then it must always be trivial" which is getting worse, not better. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens. No need for a blanket guideline, simply keep the categories to, as MSJapan suggested, to a single songwriter (George Harrison) or an established team of songwriters (Lennon & McCartney). If the songwriters simply collaborated on a limited number of occasions, it does not make sense to have categories of that. In other words, if the cat for the collaborators will have fewer than 25 items in it, don't create it. These days, that's a bit more than two albums worth of material. In the old days, that would be about three. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Gutteridge problem

I AfDed the article because there was nothing to assert his notability as an individual musician. He was in notable acts, but not long enough to record with any of them, and certainly not when they were notable. The Clean never released anything until after he left in 1980 to form The Chills, and he left them after a few months. He started Snapper, but it was apparently only notable for him being in it. I couldn't find anything on them, mainly because a claimed chart for an album was wrong. It turned out to be for the single of the same name that wasn't even listed in the article.

However, I'm a bit confused still. The reason why is because per the link the chart is labeled "Top 40" and the single charted at 49. Therefore, I'm wondering if it actually counts as having charted, because it's somehow out of the scope of the chart. In the NZ single charts, the last few spots seem to be otherwise NN acts that charted a single for a week or two, and nothing else. MSJapan (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you brought this here, but please see my comments in the AfD. --Michig (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I brought it here because I'm concerned about the chart and need an opinion. As far as the article goes, I managed to do a lot of work on it, although some of the obit articles are circular references (which is why I tend to avoid them - they emphasize timeliness over content). For example, Rolling Stone went to NZ Herald for a piece of info, but NZ Herald got that same info from messandnoise.com.

Anyhow, back to topic: If the chart says it is the "NZ Top 40" but the chart goes to 50, are the items from 40-50 considered to actually chart, or not? Clearly, the chart says one thing and is doing another. As I mentioned, a lot of times that NZ singles chart is the only chart the artist is on, and it's only for a week or two, especially in the 46-50 slots. So there's a situation where a literal one-hit wonder meets NMUSIC based solely on that chart position. MSJapan (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Discogs.com

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.

---

Is Discogs.com a reliable third-party (peer-reviewed) source or a user generated, unreliable primary source? Karst (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Wrong question. It depends on how it's used. There are multiple valid uses for its content and several that do not meet RS. It's both user generated and peer-reviewed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Well, here is an example where it was removed under WP:USERG. (notifying the editor @Sergecross73:) Karst (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

To indicate that it's the first album can't really be supported there, but I won't argue it's user generated based on its use there. @Sergecross73: might have more info on that action.

I would argue that the personnel can be supported at that link and the year of release, all of which could also be supported by the album itself. If not other track listing could be found, it could be used for that as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the website on a whole was user-generated. I'm not completely familiar with the website, so forgive me if I'm wrong, I've just never heard of it being used in a limited fashion, nor did I see any notes on its use in a limited fashion at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. That article had been littered with poor sourcing, and I had just cleared that away with the rest of the junk. Feel free to re-add if there's something I'm missing here... (Side note: Should this RFC be here on the notability page? We're talking about reliability, not notability.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The actual images (not the user generated text) for one release shows the songwriter, producer, recording studio, running times, etc.[9] (click on "More Images"). This should be seen as a primary source that is acceptable to use consistent withWP:PRIMARY. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I would have no objection to citing the album jacket itself - I've done that many a time. But I'm pretty sure discussions in regards to directly citing user-submitted photographs/scans was something we're supposed to shy away from. Or are the images done by staff? Though, even then, you're supposed to cite the album jacket directly, as you would a book, game manual, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Linking to a Discogs image with an explanation in an appropriate template (such as Template:Cite AV media notes) may help with verifiability. Discogs images can be a valuable source and its use altogether should not be discouraged by blacklisting it. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Discogs is listed as a source to avoid at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Any registered user may upload an image, not just staff. Discogs does make for a valuable entry in the "External links" section, in my opinion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I echo the above remark. Don't cite it directly, but use its images as the basis for citing the liner notes/packaging; also useful as an external link, as its failure to meet reliable-source standards wouldn't necessarily matter for external links (WP:ELMAYBE) Dan56 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the first line of that section notes editorial oversight as an issue. Discogs has peer review and submission guidelines. I noticed that this recent discussion touches upon the Discogs.com issue but IMHO it needs to further clarified. Personally I use it for two things, to give a quick reference to what an artist has released (like here) and for release dates (see Pineapple Thief reference above). The reason for the RfC is to get a good, clear guideline on when and how to use this resource. Karst (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps providing some more information would help people make a call. Do they have a dedicated staff? What are their roles? What are their credentials? Is there an editorial policy? An ethics policy? What is their review process for submissions? Do they really review information, or just confirm that it's not the equivalent of vandalism? My concern is, there's going to be a lot of "No" or "It doesn't say" answers in there, and that means it shouldn't be treated as a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is best explained through the submission process. All submissions need to follow strict guidelines as set out here. Submissions get voted on, and who can vote it restricted, see the voting guidelines. The Team includes Community Support who oversee the process. There are clear differences with a user-generated wiki where everyone can submit without any restrictions. The voting system has been in place for some time and is supervised by staff, as evidenced by this. Hope that clarifies the process. Karst (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about their submission process. It sounds like a vast majority of it is user-written, and then reviewed/upvoted/downvoted by users. That's not really "editorial oversight". Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say we should ignore Discogs. It's user-built just like Wikipedia, and while there are generally authorities who rate the content periodically, there's so much to do that they can't possibly do all of it, leaving it a volatile, unreliable source. I've linked to it before, but I'm inclined to say we shouldn't anymore. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I continue to believe that discogs makes an excellent external link for further information. But as a reference, it should be used very judiciously, if at all. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it should be used judiciously, but I do not believe a complete ban is warranted based on their policies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I use DISCOGS only for external links, to avoid including long lists of song titles in the encyclopedia. Particularly, since this RFC is on the notability talk page, it shouldn't be used to show notability. As well as being mostly user-contributed rather than written by music critics and journalist, it's also rather all-inclusive, like a telephone book or business directory. Just existing doesn't make a piece of music notable.

• I never cite Discogs as a source. However, I also, usually, do not have a physical copy of the album I'm writing about. In those cases, if there is a well-constructed Discog entry based on the liner notes, I treat it as liner notes. The alternative is having an incomplete album article, as often there are no other, more reliable sites (such as Allmusic) that provide adequate album credits and note details.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

One wonders just how thorough the search was, if no more reliable site was found. For the example given, OCLC 658679649 gives track titles and durations. Chart position statements we certainly would not trust to the album's publisher, nor to the artist. Since either of those could create a Discog entry, why would we consider it any better? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Track listings and durations are easy to find, and I certainly wouldn't use Discogs to cite chart positions. I'm thinking of personnel listings and details - individual track producers and engineers, session musicians on specific tracks, sometimes even lyric vs. music credits. All of these credit details can be found in liner notes (whether physical or digital format), but are not always given in independent sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the question – if "All of these credit details can be found in liner notes", why is there a need to cite Discogs or use their information? The liner notes can be cited using Template:Cite AV media notes. WP:PRIMARY includes: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Credit details in liner notes are essentially factual and don't reflect an opinion or interpretation. If they are different from other RS, this should be handled the same as whenever sources are in conflict. If Discogs didn't take their information from the liner notes, where did they get it? If different, a Google book search, etc. should turn up the same source(s) they used. Discogs on its own cannot be used as a RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the rough consensus that is emerging here - don't use Discogs as a source, maybe use it as an EL, and you could always look at its images as a method of double-checking someone's citation of an album jacket, since most of the time that would be a hardcopy citation not otherwise viewable online. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't cite Discogs, but I use it in lieu of liner notes if I cannot access the liner notes themselves, if it appears that Discogs contributors have accurately transcribed the notes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's how I tend to use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• While I oppose using it as a source, I do agree with others that say its still usable as an external links. WP:VG handles MobyGames, a comparable website in the video game world, in the same manner. We don't allow its use as a source due to USERG, but we still allow for its use as an EL. So there's precedent for that approach. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• I like to think of Discogs.com as a site that hosts primary sources like the liner notes in lieu of a physical album. Enough for referencing track listings and the like.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:24, 8 July 2016 (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.

Nigerian artists and music

I was pretty sure I found a WP:WALLEDGARDEN with respect to a series of articles on Nigerian artists and music, but apparently not. Moreover, according to @Versace1608:, the Nigerian music industry isn't organized enough to warrant the requirement of charting of albums or artists (which is one of the major criteria) when assessing notability. He also states that what is apparently a major Nigerian music award (The Headies) should be considered as such, but the award originated with a magazine and is only ten years old.

The result is several general notability policy issues that I wanted to bring here for discussion. The gist is that we can't use a criterion for one country that we use everywhere else, and that we should also consider an award in that country as "major" when that designation may be unclear. The other result is that we don't get as much content/coverage on those country's articles. That being said, we also don't need an influx of NN Nigerian artists using WP for promotional purposes as a result of less stringent guidelines, which we most certainly have had happening anyway. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: You make it seem like charting is the end all be all of notability requirements. Charting is not the sole crtieria that determines notability. For your info, an album or single cannot be considered notable simply because it charted. It is flawed to think that albums and singles need to chart in order for them to have stand-alone articles. Charting is one criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, not the only criteria. You nominated the Ruby Gyang, The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation and Felabration articles for deletion. All of these articles meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Let's see how many of these articles get deleted in the end. You have a tendency of not doing a Google search before nominating Nigerian-related articles for deletion. After reading your last statement, I am beginning to think that you have a problem with Nigerian-related articles being on Wikipedia.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll go get DJ Kentalky and Kanya Graeme (rapper) put back then. Clearly they must also meet the guidelines, or else I'm a racist, because clearly that's your insinuation. My point is that I'm saying certain guidelines are not met, and your attitude is "So what?" MSJapan (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That is not my attitude and I am not insinuating that you are a racist. I am just stating facts here. Please take a look at this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend (Drake song). 33 articles relating to Drake were nominated for deletion. Mind you, they all charted. If charting was the sole criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, all of those songs should have been kept. Those songs were deleted/redirected because they fail WP:GNG and didn't gain significant coverage in reliable sources. You nominated the articles I mentioned above for deletion, but you fail to accept that they pass WP:GNG. The references I provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation shows that the album received coverage in independent reliable sources. The number of sources I and another editor provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felabration shows that the event meets WP:GNG. As for the Ruby Gyang article, the subject meets criteria 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. A subject doesn't have to meet every criteria of WP:MUSICBIO before they can be considered notable. WP:MUSICBIO clearly states that a musician may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability?

I have a question about Draft:The Girl and the Dreamcatcher. The article was deleted at AfD a few months ago and this current version of the article looks like it should pass NBAND now. I had one question however, in that the band is comprised of two notable actors, Dove Cameron and Ryan McCartan. They have both acted in roles that required music in some form or fashion but only Cameron has actually done anything as a musician along the lines of Taylor Swift per se.

My question is this: would a band pass notability guidelines if it had two notable people in the group as opposed to people who are specifically referred to as musicians in the traditional "Taylor Swift" sense? My instinct is to say yes, if the people are major enough to where they'd be notable enough for their own articles, then they should qualify under criteria 6. I know this could be a little nebulous, so I figured it'd be good to ask. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Had a quick look at it. The problem is that there is no indication that the singles have charted. And the EP was only released recently. Have they ever toured or performed live? Sourcing is a problem too. Most of these are WP:PRIMARY or gossip-style sites. They are not 'independently notable musicians' (see for example The Gutter Twins. Going by the notability guidelines I would say this is all WP:TOOSOON. Karst (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Could make it simply based on WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured artists or only main artists?

Does "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." in "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" includes featured artists on a single or only the primary artist qualifies for this criteria? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the subject receive any coverage for the involvement? If yes, it would count. If not, not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So musicians can inherit notability from their more famous collegues?

How does "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" fits with WP:NOTINHERITED? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

They technically don't. They get an article anyways. It's a pretty sound principle based on WP:COATRACK and WP:SURPRISE, among others. Let's say Dave Grohl wasn't notable (gotta stretch a bit for that one, but hear me out...), but Nirvana (band) and Foo Fighters are. If he were in only one notable band, it would be straightforward: Redirect the NN musician's name to the notable band. BUT, what do you do when there are two great, appropriate targets for the redirect? Redirect to band A, but coatrack about band B when you discuss the NN musician who was in both bands? That's dumb, and so is the reverse. Leave out all mention of band B? Not encyclopedic! So, in lieu of a redirect that's simply not possible to target correctly, we make an article despite the lack of notability, because there are two valid redirect targets and neither is a subset or superset of the other. The amount of content in such an article is going to be necessarily limited, but that could include RS content on either band which didn't focus on the musician in any detail.

Gotta remember, notability is a guideline rather than a policy for a very good reason: Sometimes, slavishly following notability gives stupid results, and in such cases, do the right thing--that is, the thing that gives the best encyclopedic results. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That is quite incorrect. They don't "get an article anyways". Passing an SNG grants a presumption of notability, but it doesn't grant notability, and that's a rebuttable presumption if the references to sustain a full article turn out to not actually exist. For the scenario above, we'd redirect the musician to their most notable band, and perhaps briefly (a sentence or two) mention their side project in conjunction with where they're discussed in that article. If both bands are notable enough for articles, we could of course wikilink in the primary band article to the side project, making it easy to read up on both. Of course, if both bands are high profile and extremely notable, choosing the redirect target might be a bit difficult, but I would imagine most if not all musicians who have been in multiple high-profile bands really do have enough reference material about them to sustain an article on the musician. But if they're both marginally notable bands, that's not an excuse to also write a permastub on everyone who's been in more than one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you'll look through the talk page archives, I'm precisely correct, while you are not. Mentioning Band B in Band A's article, just because they share a common member, is a COATRACK and inappropriate for Band A's article. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I did mean to address the "occasional exception" bit. It's not in cases where someone thinks there really really really ought to be an article on _______, or we may as well have no rule at all. Rather, it's for extreme edge cases. For example, notability requires that there be independent reference material available about a subject. However, if we interpret that rule extremely literally, we could not have articles on great apes, or humans, or primates, since there are no references about those subjects that aren't written by a great ape, a human, or a primate. But in that case, that outcome would be clearly absurd, so we quietly ignore the rule in that case. It's not meant for a case like this one, the rule itself is meant to govern a case like this one, especially when most of the "articles" we're talking about would be BLPs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you'd be better served by looking back through the talk page archives of this page than simply saying how you think it ought to be. I've explained, in detail above, why the exception exists. You're welcome to not like it, try to change it, or the like... but again, it was hashed out years ago for a very specific case. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to read through all the archives. Let me know if there's some portion in particular I might want to read. But regardless, SNGs cannot override the GNG, only point to instances where it's reasonably likely to be met. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

NSONGS edited for clarity

I have edited NSONGS after encountering far too many people who either can't read or won't read, and, as a result, mistakenly inform me that a song that has charted is automatically notable. As far as I can tell, my edits have not changed the guideline's meaning, only its clarity. Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

And I have been reverted. So let's discuss. I have been told on my talk page that "[NSONGS] says charting is a criteria of notability". This is simply wrong. I have encountered this position numerous times when I have nominated unreferenced articles about non-notable songs for deletion. I believe that as currently written, NSONGS is less clear than it could be. All of the right words are there, but that is apparently insufficient to convey the intended message, which is essentially that of WP:GNG.

This is a perennial topic of discussion (link to this page, December 2012), and that what is essentially the current wording was established in this 2013 RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I brought up questions about NSONGS earlier this year, but maybe I was at the wrong talk page, since I didn't get much response.

I am proposing the following new language for the middle portion of NSONGS:

A standalone article about a song must satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this only indicates that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Again, since this is often missed: the song must be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.

This proposed edit adds more words. I would also be happy with an edit that resulted in the section having fewer words, since writing that is more concise is typically more comprehensible. Removing the numbered sentences would be acceptable as a resolution to this problem. I welcome your thoughts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I support the new wording. Also, because a song is notable does not automatically mean the album on which it is released is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Support - this needs to be clarified as I noticed this to be an issue too. A song enters a bubbling under chart and it gets a page that will never go beyond a short description with two or three references. The WP:GNG criteria need to be emphasised, perhaps in bold even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karst (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support As the editor [that] initiated the relatively large changes to the wording and layout of NSONG in 2012 and started the subsequent 2012 "perennial topic of discussion" that led to the 2013 RFC, I can say the community discussion was always centered on the fact that none of the criteria could ever be used to alone establish notability. Everything was always meant to come back to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mkdw^talk 19:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• support clarifying good strong N criteria. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If Paul Erik is available and willing, I would like to hear from that editor. That editor reverted my bold change (copied above) to NSONGS, and I would like to hear any constructive feedback. If you want to stop by only to say that a change of this magnitude should have been discussed and that is the only reason you reverted, that would be great. I have reverted plenty of changes to stable pages for that reason alone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95. I do have some concerns:

• One issue is related to strength of policy versus strength of a guideline. Your proposed language is rather strong for a guideline (which "are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"). Each time we add wording like "must" to a guideline, I think that waters down the "must" language in policies where it is more essential: "material in Wikipedia...must be verifiable"; "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."
• A second issue has to do with the relationship between the GNG and the secondary notability guidelines (SNGs) like this one. If song articles must meet GNG so strictly, then it obviates the need for a SNG at all. GNG and SNG guidelines work well with a healthy tension between the two, and one overruling the other (in either direction) is less healthy to discussion, in my view. I think the spirit of an SNG is captured fairly well in the current iteration of WP:NFILM which states, The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The link to the main article explains each criterion. A topic might be considered notable even if it only satisfies some of the criteria. Conversely, even if a topic is presumed to satisfy all of the criteria, group consensus may still determine that it does not qualify as a stand-alone article. There might be some reasons to be stricter about song articles than film articles, but I would hope it is not just because novice editors are more likely to write song articles than film articles.
• If editors are insisting on writing short song articles simply because the song has charted, I would be more inclined to point those editors to the paragraph "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" rather than adding more words to the guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul Erik and other commenters here. I have added a portion of the above change to the guideline, changing "must" to "should" per your good advice. I also left out the last sentence, feeling that it was saying the same thing one too many times. I know that most of the Support comments above were in support of the original text, but I hope that the resulting version maintains the spirit of that text without being quite as bludgeoning. Comments are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Craig Gill at AfD

Further input requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Gill. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

following on from AfD

AfD was closed with a recommendation to discuss a possible redirect. Further input requested at Talk:Craig Gill#Redirecting to Inspiral Carpets. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Marcellino foster

Hello, my article(Marcellino) was rejected for notability and it meets the number one criteria of notability status. please editors kindly help look into this matter. Angela001 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Angela001: This page not about discussing the notability about individual musicians. It's about discussion the criteria of what constitutes the notability of music-related subjects. You'll likely fine more assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

the blizzard (song)

I couldn't find this song in wiki contents. I believe Harlan Howard wrote it. A huge hit for Jim Reeves, it has been covered by Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Burl Ives and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuskoda (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This page isn't for general discussion about article creation but about discussing what constitutes notability in terms of music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Zeuskoda: See Ballads of the Hills and Plains and Jim Reeves discography and Johnny Cash Sings the Ballads of the True West and Harlan Howard and Burl Country Style (no article yet). All of those articles note that the song exists, and the Jim Reeves version appears to have gotten to #4 on the US Country charts, so that is an indication that it may be notable. If the song is notable on its own, it will need to have been (quoting from the notability guideline:) the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. You are welcome to create an article if you can locate such published material. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

YouTube & notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The current consensus of the editors here is that YouTube views in an of themselves do not constitute notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Last month, the article of a musician with (ostensibly) one million subscribers and 200 million hits @ YouTube was Afd'd out of Wikipedia. As I said (loudly) at the end of the discussion, having no mention of YouTube and its phenoms in 2017 musical notability guidelines seems to me a major oversight. I did a cursory review of these Talk archives, and found no dedicated discussions concerning YouTube. Anyone's intelligent thoughts, please. Tapered (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this page, but it's cordially demanded that any responder/commenter/contributors who are employed by major labels, small labels, or especially the RIAA disclose their interest/affiliation. Same for non-US equivalents of the RIAA. Tapered (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you suggesting?

Are you requesting that we extend MUSICBIO to recognize some specific level of cumulative video views of a music video is notable? I can cut that idea off at the pass and state that WP:GNG doesn't support that. If a WP:RS were to write about the video (I'd argue, "at length", but I'm sure others would just want to see a paragraph or two), that would help, but views alone doesn't cut it. So what's your rationale for for inclusion? What's your idea for wording? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that the policy should make no mention of it, but for a different reason; YouTube views can be purchased, and so I'd argue it's an unreliable metric.--Launchballer 10:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thats's a strong argument. It's also a three year old source. What's happened in the interim? And are you old enough to remember (or have you read about) Payola? It's analogous, not equivalent to the YouTube situation. Air play impacts sales, though of course there's no way to measure the impact. Regards. Tapered (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

GNG doesn't directly support any of the WP:BAND criteria either—that's why the criteria exist. See Red herring. I think that some number of views are the equivalent of the sales figures (record sales are sales figures) mentioned in the WP:BAND. At the least, I think it's worth a discussion, rather than individual diktats. Fortunately, the other commenters have put some productive grist into the mill. Tapered (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

While huge YouTube numbers might be subtly taken into account in any AFD discussion, I don't think that they should be given a place in the guideline. BTW I did disagree with some wording at the AFD; wp:GNG sets up the SNG's as an alternate "way in", so simply failing a SNG is not a reason for removal. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that? Tapered (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What's an SNG? Tapered (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Song Notability Guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:SNG = Secondary Notability Guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That makes much more sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Somehow (don't know what my mistake was), yesterday I was being directed to something about 'Singapore.' Thanks. Tapered (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is a part of the current media environment. What part I don't know. I didn't even consider the situation until that AfD discussion. I'll do some research to see if I can make a coherent suggestion. In the meantime, I've introduced into these Talk pages. I'd love to see comments from editors who have a handle on the current media configuration. Tapered (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wired article shows there's real money @ YouTube–indication of WP:N. Tapered (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Money does not equate to notability. People writing about something does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

When in doubt, try reading. indicate ≠ equate. Tapered (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, being written up is one criterion for WP:N. The Capris basis for inclusion was not an article written about them. Tapered (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly, but unless you read about a YouTube video don't bother trying to push the idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You write as though your opinions are the last word on this subject. Please tell me who died and left you in charge of WP:N for this (or any other) subject. And provide WP:RS to back up your claim. Tapered (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

From the onset of this discussion, your attitude has been dogmatically dismissive. Tapered (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

And it was the reason that they have an article. That they were a one-hit-wonder proved sufficient fodder. It wasn't their YouTube videos. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They wouldn't need any articles at all to merit a stub, except some WP:RS, like the Billboard charts. to verify a hit. Tapered (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the SNG abbreviation; WP:SNG does go a list. At WP:GNG they are called subject-specific notability guidelines (this is one of them) and it also provides the structure, saying that the the Notability criteria is met by meeting either GNG or the subject-specific notability guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Per a request on my talk page, the policy link is WP:Notability and the extracted text relevant to my statement is: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right....." North8000 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tapered: You came here to complain that we're not taking YouTube views into account in the notability guidelines. I'm sorry you don't like my answers but they are not mine alone. They would apply to any new request like this. Glad to have seen North8000's response as it is what I was saying. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you I can read. Your answer begs the question–how does YouTube meet or not meet WP:N? The fact that it's not been included until now is no answer at all. I now know that there will be some dogmatic hostility when and if try to change the guidelines. I also know that I'd better come up with a good reasons to do so, and elicit comment from a wide scope of interests here @ WP. Tapered (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tapered: Because existence is not enough to constitute notability. A RS other than the primary source is commenting (writing, broadcasting) about something is. For instance, a friend of mine wrote a parody song for a local sports team and it got piddly hits on YouTube but it made a local media broadcast. That would almost be enough (if it had been covered by multiple sources would have sealed it). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

DO VIEWERS HEAR NEW MUSIC @ YOUTUBE? DO MUSICIANS GET PERFORMANCE BOOKINGS AS A RESULT OF YOUTUBE? DO MUSICIANS MAKE MONEY FROM YOUTUBE? ARE THERE RATIOS OF MONEY PER VIEW VS. MONEY PER UNIT SALES? These are the sort of questions, I thought might come up as a result of my initial posting. But that would require a spirit of inquiry and give and take on part of the discussants. Too bad. Tapered (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought that since I'm totally in the dark (and lazy), participants here might have some clue about the above questions, as knowledgeable individuals. I'd never thought about this particular little corner of WP:N before, but after the AfD, YouTube looked like an elephant on the lawn that was being ignored. It still does. My surprise was the automaticity of "NO." I might have known better–a new idea always messes with peoples' comfort zones. Tapered (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tapered, you are being rude. I made a post without elucidating on what I felt was obvious. On my talk page you asked me for those specifics. So I politely gave them and then you said "thank you I can read". Then you said that my answer "begs the question" on a question that you didn't ask me and I never reflected on. Answering your new question "how does YouTube meet or not meet WP:N" literally, sources and websites don't meet notability, article subjects do. On the possible implicit question of whether YouTube videos and their stated viewing statistics help meet wp:notability under the wp:gng route, IMO they don't; there is no provision in wp:gng that recognizes them, and further, they are not coverage which is the fundamental basis of wp:gng. North8000 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tapered, if you keep running into the same wall it may not be the wall's fault. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for describing yourself and North8000 as "Wall." Couldn't have said it better. Tapered (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In the AfD at least one other editor said YouTube views are not notable.

Three editors here have said YouTube views are not notable.

I get that you don't like the answer, but that doesn't change the answer. After the first few times of restating the case I got the impression that you're saying "WP:ICANTHEARYOU". Would someone like to close the discussion or should I? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wall. Close the discussion anytime you like. Remember, you used the word "Wall." Tapered (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can hear you. Tapered (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually the wall is at least four other editors and you can't hear anything we've said. To summarize: the consensus of the editors here is that YouTube views in an of themselves do not constitute notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

---

I agreed to closure, but didn't agree to posting consensus, so I undid this closure. It would have been honest to include the consensus in your request. Tapered (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A closure usually includes a summary. I think that their closure, summary and statement of consensus were accurate and on firm ground, even though it is not the answer that you wanted. If anything, the close was too cautious / limited in that it did not say that the consensus was to not include it in the guideline. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about "featuring" musician

There is an ongoing AfD about a singer whose one claim to meet WP:NMUSIC is that she is listed as "featuring" for a song that charted in Sweden some years ago. Do "featuring" artists count as meeting WP:MUSICBIO criterion 2? (The AfD is here.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there an general writing about the subject. The guideline is that the subject may be notable if they meet the items of MUSICBIO, not that they are automatically notable. Without multiple secondary sources, I would argue they're not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think "featuring" would count towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO criterion 2. Kaldari (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If there were enough sources about the feat. artist to clear WP:GNG, then she would get an article anyway — but merely being a feat. on another artist's song is not, and should not be, an exemption from having to be the subject of enough reliable sources to support an article. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)