Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Songs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Notability from one chartEdit

So I've found myself with an odd conundrum and I need a clarification. I've recently started an AFD for the song "Three Chords and the Truth" which made one appearance on the Billboard charts, specifically 11 weeks on Hot Country Songs with a peak at #44. Two other songs from the same artist, "True Lies" and "Shame About That" (which also have their own AFDs), had even less impressive runs on the same chart (6 weeks peaking at #59 and 8 weeks peaking at #48 respectively). Those chart runs have been key in the defense against deleting these articles, but my understanding was that WP:NSONG is quite clear about this, saying that a song's notability depends on if it "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" I take the plural use of "charts" to imply that appearing on just one isn't quite enough, but I'm outnumbered on that front at the moment. Have I misunderstood the policy? And how loose is that "may be notable" clause? Would those chart runs really be enough to save the articles despite them having basically nothing else? QuietHere (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As WP:NSONGS has recently changed, I will quote the start of it, "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." In other words, charting is not a good criteria for determining the notability of a song. Many non-charting songs are notable because of their coverage., while I have seen chart-topping songs get no coverage.
I looked at (and made some improvements) to the first song. It has many references. I am not convinced that they are all about the song itself. As the title track, it might be difficult to distinguish coverage between the two, but I am sure you checked them all and did WP:BEFORE so those nominations should close without issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure who made the change to that definition of a notable song, or on what basis. It seems very flawed to me. The number of articles referencing a song is a subjective metric, whereas chart rankings, especially Billboard charts, are objective measures of how many people hear that song. As objectivity is important to Wikipedia, basing notability on a few articles rather than Billboard metrics is just incorrect. Is there another talk page where this change was decided in that I could read any reasoning? Prime624 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
What you're describing is exactly why it was changed. NSONG was not meant to allow for an article for any old song that ever charted. You still need third party sources to write an article around. NSONGS still mentions charting in its intended means, if you read the whole thing - charting is an indicator that it may be notable. As in, it's a good sign. But not a guarantee. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyone can be a third party source on a song though. It is a purely subjective test of notability. I'm not saying billboard charts need to be the sole indicator of a notable song. But charts should be weighed more heavily than articles, since the former is objective and the latter is subjective. Prime624 (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
No, not true. Only certain sources are deemed usable on Wikipedia. WP:RSMUSIC is a good example of what is usable, while WP:NOTRSMUSIC is an example of stuff to stay away from. It's not exhaustive by any means, but it's good guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sports anthem, bad qualityEdit

I am very new to wikipedia, so I don't really know how it works. I guess this is the right place to post this. In the article about the "Borac" Banja Luka football club there is a file from 2014 containing the anthem of the club performed by Medeni Mjesec. Thing is, the version used isn't very high quality, and since then newer, higher quality versions have been available. Here is the music file used in the article. Could it be updated or something? Once again, I am very new to wikipedia from the actual writing point of things, so I do not really know how this is supposed to work.

P.S. the file is called "anathem" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Audio quality has to be reduced for non-free songs to avoid copyright issues. That's most likely what happened here, in which case it probably can't be replaced. QuietHere (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 6 § File:Diddy-DirtyMoney-HelloGoodMorning.JPEGEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 6 § File:Diddy-DirtyMoney-HelloGoodMorning.JPEG. Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

British versus EnglishEdit

The following conversation at Talk:Ella_Henderson#RFC:_British_Versus_English might be of interest to you ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Danish CertificationsEdit

Example(s): [1], [2], [3], [4]

A source review at FAC has recently expressed concerns about the source pages of Danish certifications being too nondescript for verification. I tried to point out what seemed obvious from comparing the aforementioned links to each other, that it is formatted as "Date of Certification - Artist - Song Title - Label". A Danish speaker, FunkMonk, pointed out that "there is nothing in that link that makes sense in either language". Naturally, even if these links are only deprecated in the FAC space, it will be affecting a lot of articles; so I want this noticeboard to have some precedence ready in such cases. Pinging Mike Christie who had expressed desire for this discussion. To clarify, the discussion is not about whether the site is official (that is agreed upon), but just if the above link format verifies the certifications.--NØ 03:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, like I mentioned in the FAC, it seems to be WP:linkrot, and since there are no usable archived versions of those sites, my best suggestion is to contact the organisation and notify them of the issue, which they may have overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Seconding this. The pages aren't totally illegible but it is very unclear what information they're meant to convey at first glance (or even if they're conveying all the needed information). If someone can tell the org to fix their website that'd be the easiest solution. I'm not 100% that it's quite bad enough to deprecate, but I can understand why that's the conclusion other editors would come to. Personally I would hold off on making the deprecation move for a bit to see how quickly the IFPI responds to messages. If they respond and the fix is made quickly then there's the problem solved, but if it goes a month or more without correction then I don't know if we have a choice. QuietHere (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the problem? Eurohunter (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
According to Mike above, the links lack context and are not intelligible as official certifications. I am trying to find the consensus.--NØ 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
What I said in the FAC was Using Google Translate the page says "Submitted by maf on Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:11 Tue, 10/09/2018 - 12:00 TrackMeghan TrainorNoSony MusicGuld2018-SD373223206". I accept that Guld means Gold, but how does this support a gold certification? If anything it looks more like a submission of something by an external user. There's no context to indicate something like "Anything listed on this page has an official Danish gold certification". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see why that isn't a safe assumption. If you know what the IFPI is and know this is a national branch of that org then what else would you think they're referring to? Is there any other context where that website might use terms like "gold" and platinum" that it could be confused with? QuietHere (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that it's an assumption. For all I know that page is a listing of submissions by association members for consideration for gold certification, and in fact the word "submitted" makes me think that's more likely. I did try to navigate around the site to see if I could reach that page from another page which made it clear what I was looking at -- that would have been enough to convince me. But I don't speak Danish and I wasn't able to find a way to get to that page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Y'know what, that's fair enough. I stand by my/FunkMonk's above point of "make contact and hold off on drastic measures for the moment" but I see your stance makes sense and won't be bothered by the movie being made if necesary based on this logic. QuietHere (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree, no need for any action now, at least until someone tries contacting the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: How is this lack of context? How is this different than any other certifications database? Do you mean someone can add reference for Gold entry instead of Platinum? Eurohunter (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
idk, it looks fine to me. It was other people who took issue with it at my FAC.--NØ 13:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem is if you click on the link, nothing in it supports anything being said in the articles it's used in, it's basically an empty page, which is obviously iffy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: So add certref? Eurohunter (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, I think I have an answer. This link should take you to a listing page that clearly shows the certification status for Meghan Trainor's "No", which was the article where this question came up. It's not a stable link because new certs will be added to the front of the list, which will change the page number. I think an archived (and hence stable) version of this page would be better than the pages that are currently being linked to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  Done, which hopefully puts the matter to rest.--NØ 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Why even would you like to use this link? Do you mean it's problem with automatically generated references by Template:Certification Table Top? Eurohunter (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: look at the links given as examples at the top of this section. Those pages are broken and not conveniently legible. That is the concern. QuietHere (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


The Only Promise That Remains has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong release datesEdit

What is the best way to determine first release date? It's easy for new singles because more or less we can observe it but in case of 2000s singles it's hard to say what was first, CD single or digital, Sweden or United Kingdom etc. I check entries in digital stores and also its archived versions and compare it to artist website and social media, label announcements in music video, trailers etc. but it's still hard especially if you are sure certain version of release not existed 10 years ago in iTunes but today it's added to Apple Music with quite random 2008 date when the real release of this version would be 2012. So if there are trailers with release date on 6 April 2009 you can find single in digital stores with release date on 5 and 6 April. If you compare different digital stores they has the same releases assigned to the same wrong release date or just both date looks weird if you look at archived announcements. There are also cases when release was announced and delayed. Eurohunter (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is that it's almost impossible to determine the first release date with 100% certainty for releases before the streaming era, we can only put the earliest date that we can find. Artist websites are often very unreliable and wrong, so they aren't a good source to check release dates. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Seconding this. Sadly, there's no fool-proof method. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hung Medien charts such as do offer some decent insights. Digital stores are notoriously bad - particularly iTunes. I have found 7Digital to be more reliable, and beyond that, non-retail sources. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Lil-unique1: Hung Medien are unreliable as well, I'm afraid. Look at Dire Straits "Money or Nothing"... allegedly released first in Germany on 28 May 1985, but it didn't chart in that country until October 1985, so clearly that release date is garbage. I'm willing to bet that the 24 June 1985 release date for most of Europe was the first release date for that single in any territory. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Richard3120 is right. You have to be careful about those dates. They can also list the wrong country from time to time, like "Smooth", where the "US" format is actually a European/Australian format. The ID says so. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about Every Breath You Take, repriseEdit

As previously mentioned, I have started a discussion regarding a passage in the Every Breath You Take article on the origin of the piano part in the song. More participants are needed to help establish consensus–please feel free to comment at Talk:Every Breath You Take § Piano part, revisited. isaacl (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)