Open main menu

Lyrics and music videos

The consensus is that continuing this discussion would be unproductive. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
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.

This section says:"Though the list of musician channels varies, a list of the acceptable record labels and distributors is presented below:" This seems quite unsatisfactory. Some editors will assume (as I do) that this means something like: Here's a very small list of acceptable record labels on YouTube, but there will probably be very many more you can use that are equally legitimate. But other editors may assume that it means: Here is the list of acceptable legitimate record labels on YouTube. If that later interpretation is made, then including only those seven will lead to an unfair commercial bias towards those well-known labels. I think the ambiguity here should be removed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe the goal is to list some legitimate labels. We allow linking to official channels but not user-uploaded videos based on the rules at WP:EL. In other words, an artist may have their own YouTube channel, and that's a legitimate place to link, as well as the label's official channel, however, there are a great many videos from music before the 90s that have videos on YouTube but are not official channels. We want to avoid them for copyright reasons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If that's the goal, then I think that's what the guideline should say. As it currently stands, I think that statement is too ambiguous Why are only links to those seven labels shown? What's the criterion for inclusion in that list? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
[Responding to ping] The wording could be clarified to show that any video links must have some "official" status, such as from the artists themselves, their bona fide record label, or reputable providers like Billboard or Vevo. For an additional level of protection, the linked video should include some licensing information (copyright, songwriter, publisher, video production details, artist's record label & management company, etc.) such as these.[1][2] Also, maybe it's time to only include them in the External links section, which is more and more common in newer song articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And what about "a list of the acceptable record labels and distributors is presented below:"? Could that wording be improved somehow? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Or is it somehow better to lead editors to believe that only links to videos from these seven labels are acceptable?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

YouTube copyright statements

I am prompted by the comment, made by User:Ojorojo, in the thread immediately above. He says:

"... the linked video should include some licensing information (copyright, songwriter, publisher, video production details, artist's record label & management company, etc.) such as these.[3][4]."

Those two links have this information, at the very bottom of the respective song description's "SHOW MORE" sections:

"Licensed to YouTube by: WMG (on behalf of New Elektra 0110); Sony ATV Publishing, LatinAutor - SonyATV, AdRev Publishing, ASCAP, AMRA, PEDL, Global Music Rights LLC, LatinAutor - PeerMusic, ARESA, Audiam (Publishing), CMRRA, SOLAR Music Rights Management, BMG Rights Management, LatinAutor, Warner Chappell, UBEM, Abramus Digital, and 20 music rights societies."

and

"Licensed to YouTube by: UMG; UBEM, LatinAutor - SonyATV, SOLAR Music Rights Management, CMRRA, Sony ATV Publishing, LatinAutor, and 11 music rights societies."

It is my understanding that these statements are added by YouTube, not by the uploader and are legally valid. My question is this: if these statements are legally valid statements of copyright permission, why is anything else required for copyright compliance purposes? It would seem that the identity of the uploader of the video is irrelevant. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Would anyone care to comment on what these copyright statements mean and whether they are required for posting links in project mainspace? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you reframe the problem/question here? I’ve read it, but not commented, as I’m not quite sure I’m following it all... Sergecross73 msg me 11:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Certainly. The current advice at "Lyrics and music videos" is this: "When linking to a music video on YouTube use only the videos that have been uploaded by the musician(s), the record companies, or Vevo." There is no mention anywhere of YT Copyright statements (two examples above), which have appeared on YT videos relatively recently, only after this advice was originally formulated. If the copyright statements (added by YouTube, not the uploader) are legally valid, why do editors have to take any heed of who uploaded the video when they add a link to it? Is that any clearer? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
So, User:Sergecross73, can you follow that? It's now two weeks since I posed this question and only you have shown any interest at all in answering this question. I must admit I was expecting an input from User:Ojorojo who seems to have a keen interest in preventing breaches of policy involving YouTube. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
My general understanding on the subject has generally been that few parties outside the artist/label/YouTube/Vevo should technically even has the rights to host the music/videos, and that’s why we has that guidance. Beyond that, less about legality and more about quality - there’s the fact that user uploaded stuff could be altered or edited. Most uses would fail WP:USERG. I didn’t write the guidance, but that would be my understanding of it, and why I’d support its current form. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Sergecross73. Your understanding seems perfectly reasonable. And that may well have been very good guidance for many years. But I am still wondering why these copyright statements have recently popped up, all over YouTube videos, if they don't mean anything. And if they really don't mean anything, we should make that clear in the advice here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It's difficult to understand how a fan's video (that started this discussion) can be considered "licensed" by youtube. If in fact this is possible, amateurs could add their home-made videos to WP song articles, hoping to increase their hits. The requirement for official artist or record company uploads may serve the purpose of preventing videos that may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I quite agree that would be a real danger. Yes, keeping the requirements as they are might be the safest thing to do (notwithstanding the problems with the misleadingly small set of examples that I have raised in the preceding thread). But you seem to be suggesting that these copyright license statements are meaningless. Putting aside the question of why YouTube has started to add them, I wonder do we have a way of verifying your suggestion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So, YouTube has this page, where the topic headed "What does 'Licensed to YouTube by' mean?", says this:

"The entities listed in the 'Licensed to YouTube by' field are the music rights holders who have agreed with YouTube to allow YouTube to use identified music in official and user-generated videos, and share in the revenue that those videos earn on the platform. For example, if you see an ad on a video that contains music and has 'Music in this video' information, the labels and publishers listed under 'Licensed to YouTube by' are earning a share of the revenue generated by that ad. Users remain bound by YouTube's Terms of Service.
"Sometimes there may be a large number of entities sharing in the revenue for a single song. In addition to music labels and publishers whose names you may recognise, you may see that some songs are 'Licensed to YouTube by' a number of 'music rights societies'. This refers to organisations that collect royalties on behalf of their songwriter and publisher members around the world. Just like with individual music publishers, YouTube has licence agreements with these entities and shares revenue with them for videos they claim. Learn more."

Does this now make everything clear? Does it answer the original question? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

To me that sounds like "the copyright owner has agreed to this use of their material". Is this a fair appraisal? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Two weeks on, I'm a bit surprised that no one else seems to be too bothered about clarifying this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I really feel like the last comments by myself and Ojorojo really sum up everything thing that needs to be said on this. WP:USERG and WP:RS alone should be keeping you to officially channels as it is anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Ojorojo made a suggestion and I asked him for evidence of it's validity. He hasn't yet answered my original question. I await his answer. With regard to your own answer, you seem to be suggesting that a link to a YT video on Wikipedia amounts to "hosting the video"? You may be right, but I'd like to see some kind of evidence for that suggestion. Has it been tested in law? If these copyright statements mean anything at all, but especially if they may be misinterpreted, I think this should be part of the advice here. Of course, we are still all waiting for the legal action (or even threatened legal action) against Wikipedia for carrying links to copyright violating videos? My understanding is that "the buck stops with YouTube." If there is evidence to the contrary, I'd certainly like to see it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, feel free to keep asking and musing I guess, but my point is that either way, Wikipedia’s sourcing policies and guidelines keep them from being used regardless of the legality, so it’s a “don’t do it on Wikipedia” either way. Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't just musing. I was hoping for a straight answer. I'm struggling with understanding how a copyright owner earning revenue from a video being played in the public domain could be compatible with a copyright violation claim. But then I'm not a US-based lawyer, or someone who gives legal advice to Wikipedia. I think we'd all like to see a YouTube use policy that balances the best possible availability for the reader with copyright protection for the encyclopedia. And one that is based on clear facts, rather than on suspicion and supposition. Another aspect that is also still unclear to me is whether YouTube licence statements relate only to the audio content or can also cover visual content. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This sounds a bit bigger than WP:SONGS then. Maybe try WP:VP or something. Sergecross73 msg me 11:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, maybe. I came here as I saw it as the "prime user" of YouTube music videos. We do of course have WP:WikiProject YouTube. That might be the best place? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Conceptually, yes, but realically....probably not. It’s not very active - 2 comments this month, 5 in the last 3 months, 50 in around the last year. It doesn’t appear to be very active. VP may be your best bet. You’ve probably gotten all the input you’re going to get here. I really can’t give you any guidance beyond what I’ve already said about Wikipedia’s sourcing rules, which I know don’t explicitly answer your question, though it does, in effect, guide you in practice. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are probably right about Project YouTube. Many thanks for your helpful input. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
One video I personally uploaded to YouTube has music licencing additions added after YouTube auto-processed a copyright claim by the rights holder/manager/society responsible for a sample of Ghost in the Machine by the Wimshurst's Machine used in the accompanying music. The video I uploaded did not directly use the music the licencing information refers to; the content of the video has nothing to do with the music or its samples; I have no official or unofficial affiliation with the licenced music's creators or copyright holder/manager/society; the licencing information YouTube added under the video description in this case is only meaningful in regard to YouTube's legal department and the copyright holder/manager/society's claim of their right to earn advertising revenue from my video. I am pretty certain that this situation is not uncommon,[whatever] and suggests that the YouTube applied licencing info does not imply the video is in any way "official" or should be used as a reliable, authoritative reference. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If your video "did not directly use the music the licencing information refers to", why were those music licencing additions made? But I'm not asking if "YouTube applied licencing info implies the video is in any way "official" or should be used as a reliable, authoritative reference". I'm asking if it implies that the publishing of that video in the public domain (and any subsequent coincidental link to it by Wikipedia, which is in any case wholly transparent to either YouTube or the original music copyright owner) is not breach of copyright law. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I am speaking about how the existence of the licencing information in YouTube video descriptions is of no value regarding how we judge the appropriateness of a link to it in a Wikipedia (mainspace) article. My example shows that just because the legalities of the use of a sample in a song are tidied up by YouTube, the video itself should absolutely never be considered worthy of a link to it from any article on Wikipedia about the music there-within. The existence of the licencing info is irrelevant on any YouTube video which is not itself reasonably official (in some measurable way that might require discussion on a case-by-case basis), and can thus be safely ignored.
As for how the guidance, regarding how we determine which online videos might be appropriately linked within articles, should be worded; I personally don't think we need exhaustive guidance. A short-list of agreeably good likely sources should suffice for most editors who'd bother to read it. Any video we can be sure is an accurate reproduction the artist/labels original work (with quality issues aside) is a video we can use, but it's the "we can be sure" bit that matters in this regard. How can we be sure? If the record label or artist uploaded it, we can be pretty sure. Other parties may well have uploaded accurate representations, but good luck arguing that on an article talk page! It is also possible that an artist might upload an altered or non-original version of their own work without making any statement about the alterations. We are effectively unable to be sure, but should try our best.
All this home-spun legal chitter-chatting is only going to prove useful if the point of it—improving the guidance— is addressed. Should we add a statement to the guidance that YouTube videos with licencing information added by YouTube in the video description are "not official just because that information is present" (since they're patently not)? IMO: No; we don't need to. There is currently no suggestion that the info should be, or could be, regarded as meaning such, and I see no value in clarifying a point that isn't there by adding it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
You said "... the video itself should absolutely never be considered worthy of a link to it from any article on Wikipedia about the music there-within", yes? I think what you mean is "just because a video has certain music in it, that shouldn't make it a candidate for linking in the WP article about that music." If that's what you do mean, then I'd certainly agree. My point is simply this: if the artist/ label/ official channel hasn't uploaded a video of a piece of music (and it's really music without "music video" that I'm interested in) why should we not be able to link to an upload that is only that piece and which has copyright permission attached to it? I'm very sorry if you see this entire thread as "home-spun legal chitter-chatting". People get indefinite blocks for adding inappropriate YT links. It would be good if the advice here could be 100% clear.
So, Fred Gandt, as you have now nested together the two separate threads I opened, perhaps you could also give your opinion to the first part? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Unofficial (fan, amateur) uploads sometimes contain lyrics and information about songwriters, performers, etc. Some has been copied from other sites (including WP), so there may be other copyright concerns. Otherwise, it is user generated content which makes it unreliable, since it is essentially like "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites [not] written by a recognized authority" (WP:ELNO #11). The consensus so far is to stick to official uploads. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
A very good point. Yes, it is easier tostick with the current policy. But if videos are correctly licensed it might be better to treat each video on it's own merits? Even with the current system, another editor has to click on the link, to check it and make a judgement about quality. A possible new policy might simply say "don't upload videos with lyrics or information about songwriters, performers or any material copied from other sites (including WP)". That would be pretty clear I think. If the benefits of allowing more content for the reader are deemed to not outweigh the supposed additional quality risks, I still think it would be advantageous to clarify that the license statements don't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
As Serge suggests, and Ojorojo implies above; if you wish to discuss general policy (WikiProjects don't make policy) about what's ok to link and where, you should probably try Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If your interest here is to improve the guidance regarding what to link and where, we can and should only summarise general policy. It seems your burning question is "why no link [insert details] video?" and the answer is "because consensus policy says no". I really have nothing more to say about this (as it stands). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I found Serge's suggestion very useful. I'll probably try there. Perhaps you'll also contribute there with the same points? I have no "burning question". Before you took it upon yourself to combine these two separate threads into one, the first thread suggested a possible change in the wording and the examples given for the acceptable sources on YT for "official videos". I still think they are inadequate/ misleading. If your only response is that the current page is a perfectly good way to "summarise general policy", I think you are mistaken. I'm puzzled as to why you apparently have no desire to improve the way the advice is presented. But I'm sure those major labels will be well pleased if no change is required and that none of their smaller competitors even get a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes the first thread was about the content of the related project page (to this talk page), which is on topic and what talk pages are for. This (now child section) thread is a meandering musing on legal issues that only have relevance here if the discussion is (as stated in your initial comment) a continuation of the now parent. By nesting this, I have actually given it more legitimacy than it otherwise had (as a stand alone). We can put it back the way it was and close it as WP:NOTFORUM if you prefer. As for the rest of your putting of words in my mouth regarding improvements to the guidance; try again, and please be specific.
  • Do you think there should be an exhaustive list of appropriate sources i.e. every YouTube channel, now and to be updated for the rest of time, that we have, after discussion of each reaches consensus, decided is an acceptably official source, and if not, how should the list be altered?
  • Do you think the guidance should state that videos we have already discounted as appropriate should be more discounted; we already inform the project-guidance readers that videos that aren't official, by consensus established measures, should not be linked; do you think the readers need to be informed that any unofficial videos with the evidently (relevently) useless licencing info YouTube appends, should still not be linked, and if so, why? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Where exactly did I "put words in you mouth"? I'd like you to point all those instances, if you donl't mind, so I can duly apologize and retract. But I'm surprised that you have contributed to a thread that you now suggest may be closed as WP:NOTFORUM. No, I don't think there "should be an exhaustive list of appropriate sources i.e. every YouTube channel". I just think the current list is too restrictive, or at the very least is presented in a misleading way. Can you please explain why only those links have been selected? And no, I don't think "the guidance should state that videos we have already discounted as appropriate should be more discounted." I think we ought to concern ourselves with future additions. You say above that "(WikiProjects don't make policy)", but isn't it here, at pages like this, that policy is described, with guidance? I get the impression that my visit to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) might be a wild goose chase which will just bring me back here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────

  • No, I don't think there "should be an exhaustive list of appropriate sources i.e. every YouTube channel" – great.
  • I don't think "the guidance should state that videos we have already discounted as appropriate should be more discounted." – great.
  • ...isn't it here, at pages like this, that policy is described, with guidance? – Policy is outlined at respective policy pages, can be described anywhere suitable (with care to not misinterpret), including on this project page, and the guidance here should be a subject specific summary of how relevant policies apply to project related content.
  • I just think the current list is too restrictive, or at the very least is presented in a misleading way.
    • What presentation between "exhaustive" and "too restrictive" would you suggest?
    • How is the current guidance "misleading"? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      • 1. At least a few more examples of official channels for smaller record labels/ music outlets (say about 20-30?), especially with regard to musicians who self-publish through their own channel like this one, for example?
      • 2. It says: "Though the list of musician channels varies, a list of the acceptable record labels and distributors is presented below:" It might say something like e.g. "Though the number of official musician channels at YouTube is very large and often varies, a small list of acceptable record labels and distributors is presented below as examples:" etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it might also be useful and instructive to be told just roughly how many of such YouTube channels exist - is it about a hundred? a few hundred? over a thousand? This might give the prospective editor at least some idea of what scope they might have for choosing something acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see examples of official music videos that are excluded under the current guidance. A dozen or so links should be sufficient to get an idea of the extent of the problem. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree, it would be helpful to see that on the guidance page, except I didn't think it was permitted to link to any possible breach of copyright anywhere on Wikipedia? But I'll reiterate my earlier question: Can you please explain why only those ten links have been selected? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, please provide the examples here now so we can see the extent of the problem to address. Since these would be "official", there shouldn't be a copyright issue. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I have given my suggestions as to possible improvements to the advice. All pretty simple really. But the answer seems to be "there's no point in changing anything unless it can be proved there is a problem of valid links being wrongly excluded". That's wasn't really my point. If editors actually restricted their additions to only those ten sources, such evidence would never be found, would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
If you're unwilling or unable to provide any concrete examples, then there really is no point. Time to shut this down. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what would such an example look like? I've tried to explain that, as it currently stands, the guidance suggests it is not acceptable to post to a link from e.g. this channel. So some editors will not even try. How can one show an example of that? If you want to close this now-combined-into-one thread down, I can't stop you. These were meant to be separate questions. I had not expected to be stonewalled quite so comprehensively. I've asked multiple times why there are only those tem examples in the list and no one is "willing or able" to explain. I think it's very biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2019 (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.

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Desolation Row

I just returned from the Desolation Row article and was surprised to discover all the lyrics there. I am pretty sure that this is a copyright violation but seeing that this is my first time here am reluctant to just slash and burn. Should I remove them all? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Carptrash: I think you are right, and I've removed them – they were added only three weeks ago by an editor with just a handful of edits to his name, so I'm going to assume good faith and give him the benefit of the doubt, and guess he isn't aware of Wikipedia's stance on copyright. Richard3120 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Good work, guys, as covered by WP:SONG#LYRICS. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks more to Carptrash who spotted it – it probably would have been noticed eventually, but he was more alert to it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: It schould be also deleted from revision history bacuse technically it is still available same as before. Eurohunter (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: that's a good point, thank you. Richhoncho, is that what normally happens in these cases? Richard3120 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I often see copyright infringements removed per Wikipedia:Copyrights (it doesn't just apply to lyrics), and will remove myself if I see an infringement. In respect of lyrics if it is necessary to explain a referenced comment, then a short extract is permissible, but wholesale quoting of copyrighted (as opposed to out of copyright) is definately a no. Richhoncho (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: I think Eurohunter's point was that although it had been deleted from the article, it would still have been visible in the revision history in a previous version of the article, and therefore would it be a good idea to remove that diff from the revision history... I wasn't sure if this part was common practice. Richard3120 (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I took care of the deletion (I think.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jpgordon: thanks – I note the two edits in between have been redacted as well, and I don't know if these were good faith, unrelated edits to another part of the article.Richard3120 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to have worked right; one was a spelling correction in the removed lyrics; the other is a source for the genre, which remained in the article. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Unknown songs

Unknown songs without title should be listed on lists of unreleased songs? Eurohunter (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If the song is unknown, and it doesn't have a title, how can it be added to a list of unreleased songs? Richard3120 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
With year of recording or publication and note if possible. Eurohunter (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm just not sure how you can list a song if it has no title – you could add it as a note if you have a reliable source maybe. But I don't know how you would differentiate it from any other song without a title by the same artist. Richard3120 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Generally no, as there’s nothing to list. I mean, if you happen to have a reliable source that that is sure that a song was definitely recorded but left off the album, but doesn’t know the name, you could mention in the prose of the “Recording” section of the prose or something. But that’s generally a pretty rare I would think. Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean something like this. I would ad it with {{N/A|Unknown}} in title rubric. Eurohunter (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That's not just unreleased, it's unfinished as well... it's just a demo idea that he's working on, maybe one of dozens, like any other musician. We can't list every idea a musician is working on. If it is ever completed, it will probably be commercially released and have a title, so I would wait and see what comes of it. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It is one of his hundrests demo songs in past 8-9 years and we could see only few of them. Eurohunter (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Similar to what Richard is saying, it often gets messy and confusing when listing off “rough ideas” or “untitled demos”. Especially if they are multiple, and not listenable to the public. It can be hard to track what happens to them. Does “Rough Song Idea #3” turn into a song called “Purple Chairs” or does it go unused. If you don’t know, does it make sense to list both on the list. It could be redundant. What if it gets sort of changed and implemented into another song? Which doe we list? Does it make sense to list off parts of song alongside the final completed versions? It often gets confusing, so I wouldn’t list it unless you’ve got an RS and an actual name. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It is same confusing as lists of songs and when you are trying to realise how to recognise if something is different song when it share the same title, melody or lyrics. Eurohunter (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sheet music and WP:OR

Looking at Style (Taylor Swift song) today but I often see articles citing published sheet music for things like key, tempo, and song structure. Is there a song article "template" somewhere? Because I see this exact thing copied across many song articles here. My main concern, though is that unless these facts are explicitly listed in the sheet music, this seems to constitute WP:OR. Generally the tempo is listed but for an editor to determine the key and song structure by interpreting the sheet music isn't something we should be doing. Some may argue that these are basic facts that should seem obvious and not require a secondary source, but I disagree as it takes a degree of musical knowledge to properly interpret sheet music. --Laser brain (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the sheet music is often shown in the key of C, although the recorded performance may be in another key. This is because with an electronic download the key is changeable to suit the purchaser. The tempo given on the sheet music would not be interpretation or requiring any music reading skill, ditto, if given, the range required of the singer. FWIW, Interpreting music is no different to interpreting words, it's just another language (simple analogy, but you should get the point). --Richhoncho (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: Thanks—I think you picked up on my point. In virtually every song article I come across at WP:FAC, the editors are making statements like "The song is in the key of D major" and citing the sheet music. While I as a musician might be able to discern that information, it does take a degree of expertise and isn't an obvious "the sky is blue" type of statement. We should be encouraging editors to cite a reliable secondary source where an expert has interpreted what key the song is in. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain:. Perhaps we should also point out the live performance is often in a lower key than the recorded performance, and will vary from performer to performer (in the case of vocal music) so the concept that 'the song is in the key of D major' is really meaningless, pointless and ultimately misleading. - Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There are many issues regarding the discussion of songs' music theory.
  1. The article is not about a song known by a sound recording that acts as the original:
    • Does the composition exist in any form?
      • Yes; then we reference that.
      • No; then how do we know that the song exists?
        • Is it mentioned in other works as, perhaps passed from generation to generation by example, traditional?
          • Yes; We reference recognised experts' best-guess(es).
          • No; then we have only hearsay, and no reliable (i.e. "real") expert could have any idea what it sounded like. We could talk about that though, I suppose ;)
  2. The article is about a song known by a specific recording that acts as the original:
    • Was it recorded from a composition that could be shared without demonstration, i.e. written down, and do we have access to the composition or a reliable transcription?
      • Did the recording artists adhere strictly to the composition, and was the song recorded in such a way that the result, when played back as intended, retains enough fidelity that an expert could match the composition to the recording; i.e. is the recorded song the same as the composition?
        • Yes; then we can reference the composition or transcript.
        • No; then the recording the article is about is not the same as the composition that led to it, and we'd have to be very careful discussing the composition.
      • No; has a recognised expert evaluated/deconstructed the recording and provided a conclusion?
        • Yes; then we reference that.
        • No; then we're screwed.
Frankly it's probably more complex that than, but it's difficult (for me) to formulate like this. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fred, I think you made a mistake there, a song article is about the song, not a performance of the song, and, in theory, could equally mean the sheet music. Some of the articles about old songs are about the sheet music. So to say 'the sheet music says' could not be incorrect unless untrue. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. #1: The article is not about a song known by a sound recording that acts as the original, and it's following flow, is exactly addressing that possibility; no mistake (at least in that respect). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fred, noted, relevant part struck, apologies. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No problem :) Like I said, it's complicated, which of course is the reason the discussion exists, and I'm glad to see it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain: If you are referring to the use of Musicnotes as a source, it is my understanding that information such as the key of the song has not been interpreted from the sheet music itself, but copied from the "Product Information" section beneath it. The Musicnotes page for "Style", for instance, contains various information about the song's arrangement and structure, such as its key, that is presumably reliable and requires no interpretation on the part of the editor to reproduce in an article. LifeofTau 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Source for chart rankings of international billboard charts

I've been trying to fix Template:Singlechart which currently doesn't give a useable source for Euro Digital Songs, European Hot 100 Singles, Luxembourg Digital Songs, Portugal Digital Songs and Brasil Hot 100 Airplay. These rankings doesn't seem to be avalible on the billboard website at all. Do anyone know a reliable source for these charts and if we can't find one what are we going to do with the 600 then unsourced claims of these chart positions? -- Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Euro Digital Songs, Luxembourg Digital Songs and Portugal Digital Songs are all still available at the billboardbiz.com website [5], but you need a subscription for the full chart, otherwise you can only see the first few placings. I would think adding some sort of url-access=subscription parameter would mean these charts are still valid for verification. The other two are more problematic. The European Hot 100 Singles was discontinued in 2010 – I think print copies of Billboard printed the whole chart in its early years, but in issues towards the end of its existence Billboard only printed the top five, and in the print version of the magazine you were directed to the Billboardbiz website for the rest of the chart... unless someone archived these pages, it will be impossible to verify any positions, and the 1980s and 1990s positions will have to be done manually, so there's no point trying to set up the template for this chart. The Brazil Hot 100 Airplay became the Brazil Hot 100, and was printed in the Brazilian edition of Billboard and published on Billboard Brazil's website. However, Billboard Brazil stopped publication in April of this year [6] and the website has gone offline, which again means there are no online sources for this chart unless they were archived previously. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! This still leaves a few problems even where we have the charts. The template currently only take artist and chart as parameters citing the artist's chart history (which doesn't include these charts). To use the billboard biz raw charts we would need the week in which it peeked to use in the reference, which would be very difficult to add with a bot. The first step I think would be removing the current "references" linking to an empty search page, since it's inappropriate to make it look like we have a source when we really don't. Then I will add support for using Chart + Week to generate a citation for the charts we have at billboard biz so we at least can use them in the future. We could also add a maintenance category for those without a week parameter and hope people will fix it, but I don't think many editors are both subscribed to the billboard biz and willing to do this job so they will probably never be updated. If the last two charts have no online sources I feel like the template should drop support completly allowing people to readd them with the appropriate printed or secondary source without use of the template. It would also be possible to substitute the current instances of these charts without a source if we consider that they don't need a source since they're not "likely to be challenged". -- Trialpears (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you about dropping support for the last two cases, particularly as it seems neither chart exists any more, so it's unlikely that anyone will need to use a template for these charts for future song articles. As for the others, I'm afraid I know nothing about template coding – perhaps you might like to contact Muhandes or SnapSnap, who tend to make most of the updates to this template, and see if they agree with your suggestions or have any further ideas. Richard3120 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Trialpears: You cannot use the chart for the week a song peaked as a valid reference unless it confirms that that is the actual peak position. The search is a better option since it will clearly support the stated info. For example, for Bad Romance, the source used to supposedly confirm it peaked at No. 2 on the Luxembourg Digital Songs Sales chart is technically not valid because a reader would not know without doing their own research whether it reached No. 1 in a subsequent week or not.[7]. However, searching using the Billboard biz site using these parameters (Artist=Lady Gaga, Title="Bad Romance", Chart=Luxembourg Digital Song Sales indicates the actual peak position for the song on that chart is 2.[8]. So I would think coding would be possible. I did have to change brackets to %5B for "[" and %5D for "]" for the link to work, however. On a side note, why are such minor digital songs charts used in chart sections. I don't believe these are the principal charts for those countries, and I don't see Billboard's digital sales charts listed in articles for other countries. Seems a bit random to me. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the search feature and agree that it is a lot better reference and it does indeed only require parameters we already have. I have made {{BillboardbizURL}} similar to {{BillboardURL}} and {{BillboardURLbyName}}. The next step will be implementing it into the {{singlechart}} sandbox and then make sure noone there objects to the change. We still have the problem of the European and Brazilian hot 100 where we don't have a source. If we are to remove them I believe a few more editors have to support it. Lastley, I've left a notice at Template talk:Single chart. -- Trialpears (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Trialpears: there appear to be various Brazil Hot 100 charts archived for the period October 2017 to April 2019, like here, but it's not always clear what has been archived – in the example I just gave, the archive date is April 2019, but the chart is from 2017. Richard3120 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Implementation

I saw the notice at Template talk:Single chart#New source for Euro, Portugal, and Luxembourg Digital Songs; removal of broken citations for European and Brazilian Hot 100 and in order to keep the discussion at one place I am answering here. As always, I am less here to have an opinion and more to assist in implementation of existing consensus. I see above a consensus to "drop support" for Billboardeuropeanhot100 and Billboardbrasilhot100. The changes made by Trialpears to the sandbox implement the above consensus by completely removing the sources leaving all those peak positions unsourced. Per WP:KDL keeping dead links is better than removing them. I propose that we add {{dead link}} instead of removing the citation entirely. "Dropping support" can be achieved simply by removing from the documentation, and if this is not enough, we can do the old switcheroo trick where we rename them to some obscure name (using bot if necessary). Please voice your opinion. --Muhandes (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Muhandes, Seems like a better idea to be honest. The important thing for me is that it's clear that these items are currently not verifiable and {{dead link}} does that. I think just removing it from the documentation, in addition to dead link, would be enough to drop support. I will make a new version implementing these changes later today. -- Trialpears (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Muhandes, not including support is one thing, but removing all instances of the current use of those charts is another – as he noted, it's against WP:KDL, and anyway, it just gives you more unnecessary work to do. It's entirely possible that archives of both charts may appear on the internet or somewhere else some day. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Trialpears: I'm trying to figure out what you did in the sandbox, and I'm not sure I follow. Can you please create some testcases at Template:Single chart/testcases and check that it all works? --Muhandes (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've set up some test cases and it behaves as intended for all of them. While I could disable the artist requirement and have it require either artist or song I believe it's better not to in case we have to change source again in the future, since that would likely require the artist as most pages do. The reason the code is so complicated is because the weird URLs used by billboardbiz. The main problem is that they use brackets that causes conflicts with the external link syntax and that the spaces in the search terms have to be changed to %20 to work properly. They also need some search terms twice for some reason. -- Trialpears (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120 and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Please have a look at the test cases. If I don't hear any objections in the next few days I'll sync from the sandbox. --Muhandes (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, and Trialpears: It has been almost a week so I'm going to assume there are no objections and sync with the sandbox. I think further discussions should be taken to the talk page. Trialpears, please make any documentation changes if any are necessary.--Muhandes (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done synced with sandbox. --Muhandes (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Single or not: The 1975 (2019 song)

I found some conflict between a number of sources about whether The 1975 (2019 song) is a song or a single. For example, Spin, The Guardian, Vogue and The Daily Telegraph all call it the band's new "single", although the BBC and Rolling Stone says that it is "the first taste of Notes on a Conditional Form, but not the first single." What happens in this case when there is direct conflict between sources on the exact nature of what a song is? mike•owen discuss 11:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a song! Whether it is a single as well is a separate issue. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I know that it's definitely a song, but the problem here is to whether it is a single or not. Just to clarify, while some sources expressely say it's a the ifirst single from the band's upcoming album, others write that it's definitely not a single. That's the issue which I'm trying to unpick here: whether it should say single in the infobox and be listed on other pages as the first single from Notes on a Conditional Form or not. I'll just change the title to make it more clear. mike•owen discuss 13:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The album doesn't come out until next year, but you can purchase and download this song now... that makes it sound like a single to me. Richard3120 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. TL;DR: It's up to us to summarise the subject according to sources, not introducing WP:OR, being especially careful to not slip into WP:SYNTHetic OR when sources differ. Simple solution; if there are no clear WP:BESTSOURCES, give WP:DUE weight to each source, and ensure that the reader is aware that whilst some say it's a single, others do not. It is not our job to decide what is true. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
To add to this the status may have changed (it wasn't intended to be a single originally but now it is) and that's the reason sources disagree. This is a valid reason to dismiss sources while discussiong that matter per WP:AGEMATTERS. --Trialpears (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Luckily we have millions of editors and templates like {{As of}} to help us out with this WP:WORKINPROGRESS. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem is the infobox will only let you choose one option or the other, so I think Mike is asking which should we choose... giving due weight doesn't help here. Richard3120 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The infobox should be a summary (like the lead) of the article content and not be structured around, composed of, or filled with unique or surprising info. As such, if due weight is given to, and with regard to the best, sources, the article body should be able to state the differences while establishing for the requirements of the infobox, that since it is not clear if it's a single, it is still most certainly a song. If at some latter date, it is known to be a single, the article content and infobox can be changed. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I've added a note next to the sentence "The song was released on 24 July 2019." about the source conflict based on what I've read in the discussion. mike•owen discuss 21:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of songs in advertising, movies, television etc.

A recent flurry of content dispute activity on multiple song pages, including Our House, Wooly Bully, Tequila, You Sexy Thing, (There's) Always Something There to Remind Me, Hot Stuff, Happy Together and Baby Come Back, inspired the start of a consolidated discussion on the talk page of "I Can See for Miles" about the encyclopedias coverage of songs' use in advertising. I noticed while looking into what this WikiProject might have to say about it, that it says nothing about it, and think that perhaps it should. Many song articles have sections devoted to the use in other media, and it might serve the encyclopedia best if consensus and guidance is established regarding that content. Whether or not the editing community feel that the general guidelines regarding the noteworthiness of article content (and other related general guidance) is more than enough to be going on with, this Project page should probably make clear the consensus expectations of song articles. I agree with Xanzzibar, who's suggested that the discussion should take place here, for obvious reasons and because the discussion at "I Can See for Miles" is likely to dry up quickly now the initial cause and most likely source of continued immediate need has been indefinitely silenced. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The comparison to WP:SONGCOVER is interesting: in order to include a cover in a song article requires that it be discussed by a reliable source to show that it has some level of importance, not just the fact that it exists. The idea is to prevent articles from being loaded up with minor, unnoticed versions, that for some popular songs can reach dozens or even hundreds. The same should apply to "In pop culture"-type appearances. If a song is used in a movie or commercial in some memorable way that has drawn the interest of critics or other writers, it may be included in the song article (preferably with some context) with a citation to a RS. The mostly unreferenced Happy Together (song)#In popular culture section is a perfect example of what should be avoided. A guidance statement along the lines of SONGCOVER should be added to the project "Article content" section. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I use the commonly used inclusion criteria of whether or not a third party has covered the appearance as to whether or not it’s worth mentioning in an article. Additionally, I definitely don’t add it as a list or a dedicated section, but rather, as very brief prose in another section. (Usually “Background” somewhere related to release and promotion or impact.) In short, it can be worth mentioning, and occasionally assist in notability discussions, but should be kept as brief as possible per WP:UNDUE and various cruft/trivia ideas. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed Ojorojo; Happy Together's lists of trivia are almost hilarious.
Sergecross please clarify; By [...] it can be worth mentioning, and occasionally assist in notability discussions, but should be kept as brief as possible [...], do you mean the coverage of trivia in articles or guidance on the coverage on this Project page? It's the [...] occasionally assist in notability discussions[...] bit that confused me.
Should we lean, in agreement with Sergecross's preference, and avoid dedicated trivia sections? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:TRIVIA, there’s really already a consensus to stay away from these trivia/appearances sections. I’m just saying that the content doesn’t need to be 100% removed from the article either - it could be blended into other sections, but as a brief (3rd party sourced) sentence or two in a background section, not sentence after sentence of “and then it was in x, and then it was in y, etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
If we're in agreement (at this possibly early stage) that some guidance should be added to the Project page; I think between "Article content" → "Cover versions/multiple renditions" and "External links" seems like the correct spot for it to be section-titled perhaps something like "Use in other media/effect on popular culture"? Although we haven't an avalanche of interest at this time, the guidance required appears to be a fairly straightforward, commonsense combination of multiple guides we already have. Bringing it together here in an easy to parse, contextually specific, one hit reference would make life simple. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree, it would consolidate existing policies and guidelines for casual editors who may not be aware of them. Some ideas to cover in a guidance section (some are obvious or repetitious, but are for a broad audience):
  • Not all uses in other media should be added to song articles. Only those that have gained a level of recognition, such as attention from critics and other writers, merit inclusion.
  • The use should be discussed in a reliable source to show that it is noteworthy; passing mentions or listings are insufficient.
  • It should be integrated in the article, preferably with some context as described by a RS rather than "It was in Episode 15 of The ABC Show". A separate section and/or WP:Embedded list is rarely justified. In any event, the other uses should not be given undue weight.
  • Perhaps an example or two illustrate these points can be given.
Ojorojo (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support all of Ojorojo’s bulletpoints above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice work Ojorojo. The first three bullets could be directly copy/pasted with some applied linking to relevant guidelines/policies IMO. As for the last bullet; yes a couple of "nope" and a couple of "yay" examples would be ideal. I personally don't know of any particularly good examples either way, but will do a bit of hunting. That "rarely justified" case for more focussed attention should probably have a "yay" example if there is one; everything other than those extreme cases is excluded by the advice, so a "nope" example doesn't seem necessary to me. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Particularly relevant policies, guidelines and essays

Since we're attempting to collate already existing relevant guidance about Wikipedia content, rather than trying to create a new policy/guideline by the back door, I think having a clear understanding now and for posterity of how and what existing guidelines apply here is a good idea. With that in mind, I have added the following three subsections with some initial content. The following single signature should suffice for attribution. Any changes to the content of these subsections should be signed as usual. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Policies

  • WP:NOTEWORTHY (Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article): "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."
  • WP:DUE (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight): "[...] articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all[...]"
  • WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research): "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

Guidelines

  • WP:TRIVIA (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections): "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way."
  • Only if we apply the slightly adapted conditions of these guidelines to the uses of the subject song:
    • WP:NSONG (Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs): "Songs and singles usage in other media are probably notable if they haveit has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and labelpublisher of the media in which the song was featured."
    • WP:SONGCOVER (Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover versions/multiple renditions): "Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles."

Essays

  • WP:FANCRUFT (Wikipedia:Fancruft): "Avoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans." However, "[...] there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects" but "[...] fancruft [is] often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, unreferenced, or contain[s] original research" and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  • WP:POPCULTURE (Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content): ""In popular culture" sections should be carefully maintained and should contain only properly sourced examples that are bona fide cultural references."

Possible good examples of notable use of songs in other media/popular culture

Spaceman (Babylon Zoo song) and Should I Stay or Should I Go both achieved UK Singles Chart number one after Levi's used the songs in their ads. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Air Tonight by Phil Collins was used for the Gorilla (advertisement). A Leftfield (pun intended) suggestion; Phat Planet is perhaps only notable because it was developed from the music they created for a Guiness advert; that page should probably be merged in the Surfer article though. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps ideal as an example of when a version/cover used for promotion deserves a dedicated section is on Perfect Day (Lou Reed song) where "In 1997, a version of the song was showcased by the BBC in a lengthy corporate promotion of its diverse music coverage which was broadcast on BBC channels and in cinemas". Apparently although eventually released as a single, it was not created as such, and in that regard, is a good example of an advert very notably employing a version of a song purely to promote itself. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The list of performers on the BBC version needs some work. Apparently Heather Small was on it three times?!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
There's clearly a lot of work to do in general regarding this trivia thing but, I think the above examples of usage (as opposed to how they're covered in their respective articles) are good. Please make alternative suggestions if they're not considered suitable, and I'm sure we'll build an agreeable selection in no time. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Articles that have a good "use in media" statement may have other problems that make them less than ideal as examples. "Perfect Day" also includes a typically trivial "In other media" section. Blue Velvet (song)#Use in film soundtracks includes some info about Lynch, but also has other unsourced trivial use mentions. Kansas City (Leiber and Stoller song)#Recognition and influence has an interesting use, but the article is a mess. I was hoping to find a FA or GA, but so far haven't. Good work on the applicability of existing policies. This discussion can be linked in the guidance entry to show how it came about. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I had the same thoughts and personally think we'd be better off providing good and bad examples with some simple reasoning as theory rather than practice i.e. explain why Perfect Day or Blue Velvet's use in other media is worthy of note, rather than simply link to the articles. As article content is constantly changing (and not always for the better), we can't be sure that offering one as an example will have the desired effect next week. Consider the obvious use of Happy Together as an example of a really bad article (in the respect); hopefully with this clarification in place, the amending of the article will prove a reasonably smooth process, which would render the article a good example and we'd have to amend the guide. I'll try and write up what I mean tomorrow (after some sleep). We'll have it nailed down soon enough :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't Stop Believing in The Sopranos, Baby Blue (Badfinger song) in Breaking Bad and Tomorrow Never Knows in Mad Men all seem like good examples. Calidum 03:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Chelsea Dagger and Seven Nation Army at sports events. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we decide two things; which and how many of these suggested good examples (of songs used in other media, rather than current article content) should we use? Perhaps if we all list our choices in preferential order (most to least), with an indication of what we consider an ideal quantity...

All twelve suggestions (so far)
  • Spaceman (Babylon Zoo song)
  • Should I Stay or Should I Go
  • In the Air Tonight
  • Phat Planet
  • Perfect Day (Lou Reed song)
  • Blue Velvet (song)
  • Kansas City (Leiber and Stoller song)
  • Don't Stop Believing
  • Baby Blue (Badfinger song)
  • Tomorrow Never Knows
  • Chelsea Dagger
  • Seven Nation Army
Our preferences
In the Air Tonight, Blue Velvet, Tomorrow Never Knows, Don't Stop Believing then Perfect Day; 2 or 3 examples. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the "some simple reasoning as theory rather than practice" that you mentioned above (the otherwise good Don't Stop Believin'#In popular culture begins with a typical unsourced "The film Monster prominently included the song in 2003"). But I'll go along with what you decide. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I've not abandoned this discussion; I'll be back B) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft guidance

Based on the excellent discussion above, I suggest the following to fit between Cover versions/multiple renditions and External links with a section heading of "Popular culture, trivia and use in other media" and a shortcut of WP:SONGTRIVIA(?)


Songs are heard and referenced in movies, TV shows, commercials, during political campaigns and at sporting events; songs are widely adopted in popular culture but not every instance is noteworthy. The use of a song is only worthy of noting in its respective article when it:

  • has gained its own critical attention; e.g. a movie reviewer may critique a director's use of a song, or a newspaper may report on the reentry of an old song into the charts after its use in a TV commercial (similar to advice in WP:NSONG and WP:SONGCOVER)
  • is discussed by a reliable source; i.e. the critical attention is featured prominently in meritorious publications
  • is not merely listed or mentioned in passing; e.g. a movie review in a quality source simply lists the songs in the movie, without discussing the importance or merits of the songs' use

Taking care to not synthesize or infer that sources are discussing the use of the song; if the above criteria are met, next consider the value of the information for the readers' knowledge and understanding of the subject, and if the article about a song could be considered incomplete without the addition. If the use of the song is noteworthy and informative:

In any event, the uses of the song should not be given undue weight, and verifiability and notability do not dictate that the details should be included.

A fair example of the noteworthy use of a song in other media is of Lou Reed's song "Perfect Day" being used in an episode of Fear the Walking Dead.

  • Matthew Chernov for Variety discusses the qualities and content of the song and its use in relation to the tone of the episode.[1]

A tragic example of what happens when these guidelines are not respected can be seen in the "In popular culture" section of the article about "Happy Together" by the Turtles.


What do you think? Too long? I suggest piped linking of relevant policies, guidelines and maybe essays (listed, with their relevance, in sections above), but didn't actually do that bit because it's 1:20am and I think this draft might be too long and need trimming. I'll wait for feedback. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A very good start. I am wondering about the length (as is, it would be the longest subsection/topic in "Article content"). Also, the inclusion of "For lists of uses by date, use an instance of {{Timeline-event}} for each entry; see WP:DATELIST" may be counterproductive. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I made a minor grammatical edit, and I'm not sure you can say "very notably" instead of "notably", but these are trivial points... it looks good and something like this should be implemented. Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the grammar fix Richard (for brevity we should probably just adjust the draft instead of repeat it with changes); I removed the "very" per your concern. And:
Yes Ojorojo, it is comparatively long isn't it. Considering the apparent scale of the issue on song articles (I killed the unsourced crap on "Happy Together" yesterday and am waiting to see if anyone complains), and the complexity of tying together all the relevant policies in a coherent guide, I wonder if its length is appropriate. Please suggest how it should be trimmed though; I'm not precious or delicate. We can remove the "timeline" stuff, but it does at least offer guidance, if a list is going to be used, that would perhaps result in lists that don't completely suck. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I did a little trimming and copy-editing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Any thoughts on the above draft? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I really like it. I fully support it. It’s pretty much what I’ve done in song articles I’ve created and maintained anyways. (I kind of chuckled at the use of the word “tragic”....but it’s not wrong either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this is all sensible advice. It's not exactly the same, but I've used basically the same logic when dealing with lists of artists who have used a particular piece of musical equipment. Here's an equivalent tragic example. Popcornduff (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Great; should we wait to see if there's any opposition or concerns that need addressing, or just go ahead with deployment and tweak it in situ? Ojorojo was concerned by the length, but it has been trimmed since, and the suggestion to use a timeline if appropriate was discussed. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm just passing by, and while I totally agree with the content, it seems too long and over-complicated. Consider putting all three criteria in a single line. I'm also not certain the examples given serve the purpose. I looked at "Perfect Day" and I can't say it exemplifies the criteria listed. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Muhandes: You're right, the "Perfect Day" article is not an ideal example, which is why the example is not the article, but just one of the uses of the song in other media. Nearly every good example is currently buried in articles with less good and downright bad stuff alongside; the actual use of "Perfect Day" in Fear the Walking Dead is exactly inline with the guidance. It's not too amazing to set an unreasonably high bar, while being precisely what we can fairly consider noteworthy. I'm not sure that the three criteria would read well as one line myself, but I can put it back as three lines if you think it looks to long (in page length terms). Short bursts of info tend to sink in better than long prose; "The line length should not be too long as the eye gets lost; too short and the reader is unsettled."[2] Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. We had already discussed this concern (example articles vs example theory) above. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made a couple of changes, not mentioned in this thread, since the last feedback; in this edit I replaced emboldening with emphasis inline with MOS, and during the edit in which I leave this message, I have significantly altered the opening paragraph. Feedback above was in response to a series of versions; see history for details. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The current version is much better. I'd further shorten (or even drop) the sentence If the above criteria are met, next consider if the article about a song could be considered incomplete without the addition of how, where and by whom it has been used. The links do not really help understanding the concept. I also still think the examples are confusing rather than helping, maybe that's just how my mind works. --Muhandes (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I've made more alterations per your feedaback, but it's now significantly different to the draft that others "liked"; we'll have to wait for more feedback. I haven't changed the examples because I can't see the problem myself. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It's getting better, but I still would prefer something more succinct. A recent edit to SONGCOVER made it even briefer.[9] I'm not suggesting this for here, but the difference is striking. The approach and tone should be more consistent from subsection to subsection. The Beach Boys quote in the opening doesn't really add much and I agree with Muhandes that the links for the examples are not that helpful. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The Beach Boys quote was just a thought, but gone. The great example of a truly noteworthy use of a song in other media that is "In the Air Tonight" in the Cadbury ad leading to a good article was meant to concisely demonstrate what we should be aiming for, but I've scrapped it. I've removed the linking to Perfect Day since it seems to be confusing, though I fail to see the problem myself; the fair example is the example not the article. Making advice less advisory so it looks like the other advice about different issues is utterly ridiculous; it doesn't matter at all whether this section is longer than the others. Perhaps the other sections need to be expanded, to be clearer and more rooted in and exemplary of their core policies and guidelines; perhaps then we'd have fewer trashbag articles with more trivial garbage than sources, spewing out the sides of this encyclopedia. <insert continued rant here> I'm tired of tweaking the draft and am going to do something else. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

So, Muhandes has put the linking to "Prefect Day" back, and nothing else has changed. There seems to be a general "it's okay" to "good to go" support for deploying it as is. Let's avoid "perfect is the enemy of good" and set it free; it can (and probably will) be tweaked as the years roll by. All those against, please speak up now. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that was a long enough wait; I've added the content to the guidance in the previously suggested section (which garnered no disagreement) and will create a shortcut if 1) the addition is not disputed within a reasonable period, or 2) no other editor does it first. Good job everyone; we have succeeded in summarising a wide array of policies and guidelines for the simplification of guiding song article creation and maintenance. Yay us! Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Matthew Chernov (September 20, 2015). "'Fear The Walking Dead' Episode 4 Recap: Boots on the Ground". Variety. Archived from the original on September 22, 2015. Retrieved July 16, 2019.
  2. ^ Wellington, Jerry; Osborne, Jonathan (2001). Language And Literacy In Science Education. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. p. 115. Retrieved July 21, 2019.

Information cutback?

The description of the project says, Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article. And then? Is it also a goal to ensure all basic information is being integrated into every such article with each mentioned song, like: composer and the year (s)he created the music, lyricist and the year (s)he wrote the words, year of first official performance and/or recording? What I am sadly used to find not too seldom is written by ... (2 or 3 names), not telling who did what, or if all did both, aso. ... this is most dissatisfying.

I wish Wikipedia to really work as an enclopedia, in this case meaning that it tells me the names of the authors AND their role(s) (creation of music and/or words) in order to (a) help me finding sheets more easily, and (b) in case I find either the tune or some words interesting, to search for more from the same author, already knowing if (s)he is/was a composer, or a lyricist, or both.

Yet, what I experienced just a few minutes ago is even worse. Searching for a song which in terms of its popularity when it was new should be ranked as some kind of important: alright, okay, you win, guess what I experienced? To be taken to Count Basie Swings, Joe Williams Sings where all I find is 3. "Alright, Okay, You Win" (Sidney Wyche) – 3:05 — no mentioning when it was written, and even worse, concealing the name of Mayme P. Watts, as Mr. Wyche, according to some jazz teachers I know, was not the only creator. Moreover, I am used to find hints what a song was written for: a Broadway show, a musical, a movie, a tv show, an album etc., and hope I can be looking forward to finding more of this kind, not less.

There seem to be some thoughts on making it easier to register lesser known songs on Wikipedia: great, but if even popular tunes are treated that cursorily, I am sceptical about the results. Regardless of quality criteria which even in natural sciences often are hard to define — if you intend to increase support for the recognition of unknown songs, which I would appreciate a lot, you cannot treat a historic earworm so carelessly.

But if that is yet what your restrictively relevance-minded project(s) will look like, then why not delete most of the content to replace it with just a few external links? (To ... cdbaby? Amazon??? Alibaba????? So many ency... what was it?) Could help saving time also for users by avoiding to purposelessly visit slimmed-down Wikipedia in the first place, or even at all ... --80.109.76.103 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Some of these complaints...aren’t necessarily Wikipedia’s fault. There are many artists that simply don’t disclose that level of detail in the writing/recording/credits just simply isn’t documented or disclosed anywhere. Or if it is, it’s hard to find. I would know - I find that sort of information interesting too, and would add it more frequently if I could. Alternatively, the other issue is writer interest. Many editors would rather waste their time arguing whether or not a band/album/song is “heavy metal” or “alternative metal” (which is commonly splitting hairs and inconsequential) than actually describing its actual sound/composition/themes/etc. Similarly, editors would often rather update YouTube views or narrate a music video than dig deep into the creation process. Like it or not, when it’s a volunteer project, people only do what they find interesting. Your complaints are a combination of “not possible” and “not likely”... Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Dare I say SO FIX IT? Yes, I dare. As Serge says, (I paraphrase) "good articles require good info, which is sadly sometimes hard to come by". I recently had to buy a 12-inch vinyl single I have no other practical use for, just so I could read the info on the label for an article! Damn thing wasn't cheap either *grumble grumble*. If you want Wikipedia to be better – make it better – if you can. While you're thinking about that, try not to forget that with currently nearly 6 million articles about practically everything, we're not doing too badly :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll echo what Sergecross73 says above... there are over 100,000 (and rising) song articles on Wikipedia, and only a handful of regular editors who work on them, and album articles too, so we can't keep up. It's also the case that songs from the last 10 or 15 years are much better represented on Wikipedia than older songs - it's understandable that the majority of Wikipedia editors are interested in the "now", and only have access to the internet, and not to books and music magazines from an earlier era when these were the only sources of information about songs. As a member of the British Library I have more access to this print information than most, but as I no longer live in the UK my visits are infrequent, and there's only so much information you can look for in one day at the library. One person's idea of top priority songs to work on will be very different from another's. The Songs WikiProject doesn't have a list of "most vital songs", but the Albums project does... I'm visiting New York next month and hope to visit the magazine collection in the NY Public Library and help out on the Rolling Stone 500 albums list, which is the project's priority. Wikipedia really needs a lot more editors with the time and access to these resources, but unfortunately most of us still have jobs and other things to attend to in real life to be able to dedicate ourselves to Wikipedia totally. We're not ignoring certain songs or albums... it's just that it's always going to be a very long process to try and research everything.
Serge is also correct that in many cases, the information simply doesn't exist as to the level of detail of the songwriting. Most people are aware, for example, that although the "Lennon/McCartney" credits appear on the majority of Beatles songs, some were more Lennon and some were more McCartney... but it took until Iain McDonald's Revolution in the Head to provide any real details. But that's a rare exception that does provide the kind of detail you are looking for - all R.E.M. songs were equally credited to all four members until Bill Berry's departure, but they certainly weren't joint efforts for the most part, although nobody knows who wrote which songs or what parts of the music, and it's likely to remain unknown. Another example are the songs of Elton John - it's commonly assumed that John wrote all the music and Taupin all the lyrics, but that's not true: Elton often added verses or replaced Taupin's words with some of his own, but again, it's not always known which songs this occurred on. Richard3120 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
And I would add, often when the whole band is credited as songwriters, it is to save the arguments when they come back from their first world tour and the songwriter of the group has bought a nice new 10-bedroom mansion while the rest still have to live with mum and dad. The songwriters named at WP can only be as revealed in neutral official source, including ASCAP, BMI, and a few other PROs that make the information publicly available - and that is the 'primary' source of this information, of course if it is claimed elsewhere somebody did or did not take part in the writing process and is reported by RS, then that can/should be in the article as well. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I recently learned about White Lines (Don't Don't Do It)'s bullshit accreditation of "Grandmaster (sometimes 'Flash') & Melle Mel" by the record label in an attempt to hoodwink buyers into thinking Grandmaster Flash was one of the creators! Shady business indeed >.< Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fred Gandt: early hip hop singles are a prime example of how writing credits on the label don't tell you the full story of who was really behind the song... Grandmaster Flash's "Adventures on the Wheels of Steel" samples Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust", Chic's "Good Times" and Blondie's "Rapture" among others, but none of the writers of these songs are credited... Sugarhill label boss Sylvia Robinson does receive a writing credit, but Flash himself doesn't... but surely it was entirely Flash's idea to come up with the idea of mixing all these records together, and was therefore the only "composer" of the song? Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I have two responses. The first is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic compendium of notable works. Working backward, the work must be notable before we would even consider creating an article for it. Not every song on every album is notable. Unless a sevaral writers do the research on the song and publish that information, we don't meet WP:GNG. The WP:NSONG criteria gives you some ideas of when writers may be interested in writing about a song, but not every song that meets the second criteria will meet the first. That brings me to the first part of that phrase, we have to be able to have an encyclopedic entry for the songs. Simply to state that a song was written by someone and was released on an album at some point is not encyclopedic. We are not a database that lists every song ever written. That's not our goal and most of us will leave the project if that starts to happen.
The second response is be WP:BOLD. If you know that we do not have an entry for a notable song, write it yourself. You can either start it as a draft and have it moved to main space, or you can try to create it in main space and be sure to provide sufficient references to convince us it's a notable work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The content (even existence) of the "In popular culture" section on "The Sign (song)" is currently disputed

Hello. I reviewed the content of The Sign (song)#In popular culture and subsequently removed the entire section. My removal was reverted and I started a discussion about the disputed content on the article's talk page (and notified the IP on their talk). I'd appreciate some more eyes on it if you can spare the time; have I been overly harsh? Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Before starting an RfC on either "type" issue or image issue...

I was given a suggestion that I start an RfC on an issue of either what to enter in type parameter of {{infobox song}} when there are multiple releases or which image(s) to use especially for a lead infobox like "infobox song". Before narrowing down to which issue is more important to discuss first or easier to resolve, let's discuss what you, I, or we know so far.

Originally, I started a discussion at Talk:You Shook Me#Image on whether to replace the EP cover with a US vinyl label especially to acknowledge the existence of single releases. However, I was told that an EP image is more suitable probably mainly because (in my own words) it has a song title and face of an artist and an EP release is described in prose. Moreover, my edits to change entry in "type" was reverted. I hate to admit that I don't know what the main issue is a lot more. I know that releases do exist and that images prove that, especially by bold editing and when song articles have existed. I figured that a reader would pay attention more to an image than the whole article, but I guess only a few readers do that.

I also know that most editors have tendency to use a cover art (or "picture sleeve" or "artwork") mainly to illustrate an artist, a song title, and to illustrate critical commentary. It happens to most song articles, especially about older songs from the 20th century. A vinyl single's side label is a free alternative, but it seems that most editors don't really want to use a label. I know that cover arts have been a marketing tool and strategy primarily to attract music listeners. I believe that, to use only a picture sleeve, an insertion of a side label would be denied, especially per WP:NFCC. Then I recently re-read Template:Infobox song#type, saying to "use the most notable or best known" release/type thing(?). This affects not just "type" but infobox images as well.

Normally, I discourage using promo releases if commercial/retail singles happen to exist. Somehow, at Babe I'm Gonna Leave You, the promo EP is used instead of the Greek one mainly because Greek retail release has been not well known. What about consistency with discouraging promo cover arts if a commercial/retail release exists (or is more well known)?

I don't know much about appropriateness of using an image as much as using what exists and what suits a song and an artist's source country well, especially if an artist happens to reside in that country and/or was born in a native country, and what reflects a single's success in that source or native country if the single was released in that country. I also don't know much about the issue of changing or entering type as much as entering whatever was released commercially (and charted if done so). I figured that an image is a huger issue to me because an image is a very attractive thing to do, create, and/or whatever. However, I guess that's not the case (yet). Maybe entering the type is a huger issue than what I've imagined because it comes before an image, but the way I perceived the type issue seems too simple and too black-and-white more than what should have been a complex and grey (or colourful or rainbow-ish) area. This demonstrates that I've focused too much on images and existences and too little on which releases and formats are more prominent and more well known. Someone else with greater music or song expertise and more prepared can start an RfC better than I can.

BTW, what to do with the top infobox of Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, which currently uses "song" type, though it was released as a single in continental western Europe, Japan, and Australasia in 1969? I believe that the 1969 single release is more well known than being an album track, right? And I added the Japanese single and changed the type from "song" to "single" in Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On). –George Ho (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC); edited, 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

...I think you’re going to write up a briefer version on this if you want anyone to give more input on this... Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I started this pre-RfC with hopes of knowing what to do next besides writing a "briefer version". Speaking of "briefer version on this", do you mean the RfC? If so, then which one of the two issues do you think must I concentrate on for the RfC? George Ho (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that is a massive wall of text and there must be a more concise way of outlining the basic premise of the issue. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think what George is saying is (a) can we use the cover art from an EP, promotional single or other form of release in the infobox, if the main release format of the single didn't have a picture sleeve or doesn't illustrate the artist name and/or song title as clearly as another format, and (b) is it OK to describe a song as a single if it's only been released as one region of the world and remains an album track elsewhere? Forgive me if I've got anything wrong, but as Serge says, that's a lot of text to wade through to get to the heart of the matter. Richard3120 (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, this was exactly what I was asking for, if that is in fact a correct summation of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Richard, for summarizing well what I said (or should have intentionally said earlier). I was planning to summarize my very long text, but then I guess Richard's summary is mostly correct and better than I intentionally planned. There are also other issues that Ojorojo raised, like "1) what to use for |type= when there are different releases, and 2) should only an image be used that is described in the infobox?". Nevertheless, those issues brought up by Ojorojo are harder to explain in concise words than the ones brought up by Richard. I begin to realized the two issues that Richard summarized are more important and matter more to me than the other two that Ojorojo mentioned. In other words, if necessary I'll try two separate RfCs on issues brought up by Richard3120.

BTW, I just found out that Template:infobox song#type, saying to use "most notable and well known", was updated per talk at Template talk:infobox song and while "infobox single" was in progress of merging into "infobox song". George Ho (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC); edited, 03:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Barely skimmed through the first post here, but just to say that there was a discussion about the issue at Talk:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da#Infobox single as far as it relates to that article. I really don't agree that the 1968–69 single was better known than the White Album. JG66 (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I realize that I must start over the discussion... by splitting the issues mentioned into separate sections or subsections. That way, I think the discussions can flow better. Subsections or separate? --George Ho (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

To make it easier, start with the issue that the infobox documentation/guidance addresses: Currently for type it includes "If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, 'Stairway to Heaven' was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but became best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album." Should this be changed? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:infobox song#type

Starting over from the above discussion...

The instruction of Template:infobox song#type says:

Specify "single", "instrumental", "composition", "promo", etc., as shown in the code table below. The entry will be automatically linked to the corresponding article, so only the unlinked code is needed (the default is "song"). If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, "Stairway to Heaven" was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but became best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album. This field is used to generate the header and color; please note that it is not used for genre or format, which are described in the |genre= and |format= fields.

In other words, a song can be known as accordingly either a "song" or a "single", even with a single release. This was updated in 2017 when "infobox single" was in progress of merging into {{infobox song}}. The update was in response to a discussion at Template talk:Infobox song. "Stairway to Heaven" is a nice simple example. (Well, there is a Philippine retail(?) release.) However, other songs would make "Stairway to Heaven" too simple to be the only example to use. The top infobox of "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" uses "song" as the type entry but uses a sleeve of the 1969 French single, and which charted and was released as a single in continental Europe, Japan and Australasia. There's also the second infobox below the top one. Reading Talk:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da#Infobox single, I saw that the discussion led to changing one of the infoboxes.

I attempted to change the type entries to "promo" at Dazed and Confused (song) (there's a promo single of the original, yet the original is considered a song) and "single" at Babe I'm Gonna Leave You (there's a Greek retail single, but a promo EP is used instead because the song is mostly known as an album track outside Greece) to comply with primary sources, which are the physical releases themselves. My efforts were reverted ([10][11]) because the releases are not considered "well known" or "most notable" per the doc instruction.

What about Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On), which I recently changed from "song" to "single" because the Japanese retail single happen to exist? Should the type be changed back to "song" just because Japanese release is not well known or something?

Should the instructions above be changed? Why or why not? If so, what do you propose? –George Ho (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Shorter version

The instruction of Template:infobox song#type says:

Specify "single", "instrumental", "composition", "promo", etc., as shown in the code table below. The entry will be automatically linked to the corresponding article, so only the unlinked code is needed (the default is "song"). If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, "Stairway to Heaven" was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but became best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album. This field is used to generate the header and color; please note that it is not used for genre or format, which are described in the |genre= and |format= fields.

The above was added as a result of a discussion at Template talk:Infobox song. Should the instructions above be changed? Why or why not? If so, what do you propose? George Ho (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as is Songs that were released only as album tracks in the US and UK are sometimes issued on promo singles or commercial singles in other markets. However, when the song remains best-known as from an album, |type=song is displayed in the infobox.
    As a recent example, "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" was released on Led Zeppelin's first album. To promote the album, it was included on a promo EP, which were usually only sent out to radio stations and the press. Although the group were opposed to releasing singles, apparently it was released in Greece. I own several LZ biographies and "Babe" is always discussed as an album cut, with no mention of a Greek single. It's not included on the FL Led Zeppelin discography under "Singles ...", maybe because it never charted. The FA Led Zeppelin doesn't identify it as a single. The "Babe" article didn't mention it, until one unreferenced sentence was added "The version was released as a single in Greece; its B-side track is 'How Many More Times'" was added at the same time as the type was changed to "single".[12] So, it seems that the Greek single has attracted no interest by reliable sources.
    By scouring Discogs or 45cat, it is possible to find obscure releases ("Gallows Pole" as "La Horca" by "Ledd [sic] Zeppelin" was released as a 7-inch 33 rpm A-side in Argentina).[13] However, the fact that these exist is not sufficient to identify songs as singles. When they are not discussed by reliable sources, even mentioning them in an article seems to be little more than trivia (which WP song articles are thankfully moving away from). Maybe this idea can be expanded or clarified in the infobox guidance.
    Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hardly think this concern is really about the template or its documentation, which seem perfectly fine to me; each of the examples provided demonstrate that the infobox and documentation are working as expected/desired. Any issues regarding what |type= should be applied should be addressed case-by-case on the respective articles and their respective talks. The semantics are clear and I don't feel the need to provide more examples to explain my opinion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Quotes around songs listed in see-also sections?

Where a see-also section is employed, is there any guidance about whether listed songs should be quoted (or albums italicised, but one thing at a time eh), or do we need to have a discussion about it? Assuming the article editors have bothered to add appropriate annotations, I consider it a no-brainer that songs mentioned in the prose should be quoted, but how about a song listed as the article to also see? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Since it is falls into the list of "songs, instrumentals, arias, numbers in a musical, movements of longer musical piece, album tracks, singles, and other short musical compositions", MOS:QUOTETITLE applies. Is someone arguing against it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
There is currently no argument about it I know of Walter; I just wasn't sure. Consider (ignoring the red hue):
Should the song name be quoted like:
If it should, I suppose italicising album names (and other similar work names) would also be appropriate? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I tend to think styling in a see also list is a bit off the mark (no idea why I think that), but the MOS still applies to see also sections. We do style navboxes appropriately, for a parallel. --Izno (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I would argue for
or
as that meets QUOTETITLE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Walter and Izno. It's good to get feedback when one's not quite sure. "Awesome Band" should really be a thing :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, Some Band was already taken. It was the name of Steve Taylor's back-up band in the 1980s. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

MTV (UK and Ireland)

Isn't it named "MTV UK" instead of "MTV" like on the website? Is television channel independent from website? Eurohunter (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description to Infobox song

I've proposed adding an automatically-generated short description to {{infobox song}} at Template_talk:Infobox_song#Adding_short_description - comments welcome. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Misty Mountain Hop

The song/single issue involving Misty Mountain Hop has been discussed at Talk:Misty Mountain Hop. -- George Ho (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Actual release dates for singles

Is there a consensus as to which release date is to be used in the infobox for a single? I'm in a feud on Big Enough (Kirin J Callinan song) with an anonymous editor using both an individual IPV4 and an IPv6 range to contest without sources that the single released on the same day as the album it was featured on, when it actually didn't per various sources, including iTunes per WP:AFFILIATE. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry and warring aside; a single's release date is just that. Whatever the official initial release date was, where good sources are available for confirmation, is the only reasonable date to use. I can't imagine any need for discussion; consensus would surely be implicit; by definition, the "release date of a single" is just that. Anything beyond an official release (leaked, rerelease, pirated etc.) can be stated separately for lulz if the weight is due and the sources good. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Take care that date information corresponds with related boxes. For instance, the page "Dancing in the Dark" has an infobox for release date. In the page for the album, "Born In the U.S.A.", there are infoboxes for singles released, and date released. The first single released was "Dancing In the Dark", and there is an infobox for it's release date. This date has to correspond with the date on the "Dancing In the Dark" page infobox, do we agree on that? They cannot have conflicting information. Thank you
Tillywilly17 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor who clearly needs help

I've tried to advise and had to revert User:Tillywilly17 but it's getting beyond me. See their edits at Thunder Road (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for instance - I don't quite understand the latest edits there. Here[14] he uses Wikipedia as a source. I'd have replaced it with the source in the main article but is it ok? This isn't that clear.[15] The editor's other edits are equally problematic. He has his own Springstein website which he was using as a source and considers himself an expert. He expressed dismay at having to read our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tillywilly17 – because. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is in need of intensive care. It is a rambling and incomprehensible mess.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a lot of editing to look at, but the gist I get from their talk page and contribs is that they're claiming to be a writer for "brucebase" (a now unavailable but partially archived wiki) and are providing sources with no specificity (like pages). The first obvious issue is that as a writer for this wiki, were they regarded by a wider community as being an authority on the subject, or as having any editorial oversight? I noticed some comments about copying from "his own website"; if "brucebase" is that "website", I pulled up an archive of one of the pages, which states that "Contributions to http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License"[16], so at least that wouldn't be a problem. They're certainly enthusiastic, but phrases like "do not delete my original words again like you did last time" show possible ownership issues and an unwillingness to collaborate (which if they're used to working on a private wiki, isn't surprising). Administrator intervention seems required, as their talk page and contribs indicate a large amount of disruption to articles. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Love that song. I did some script-assisted clean-up and it's on my watchlist now. Yes, it needs work and if there are copyvios, we can alert an admin to remove them. I'll let you do the legwork. I'll offer support as needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Doug you have done but insult me, my integrity, and one of the other websites I work for, which I give full effort to just like here
You are making my life here miserable. Try to be more positive so we can collaborate
Tillywilly17 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Editors with continuous disruptive editing where discussion and reasoning has otherwise failed should be reported to WP:ANI at the earliest convenience. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Tillywilly17 this conversation cannot proceed in any useful, constructive way unless you post your comments in an appropriate way. Please read the guidelines at the following links: WP:TPG and WP:THREAD
It is essential that you add your comments after any that are already present in the section, and that you do not interfere with comments by other editors. Ensure you sign you comments, and for clarity, please state exactly to whom you are speaking with each post.
Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
sorry I have been on defense lately, felt ganged up on. I have stopped contributing for awhile so I can concentrate on clearing up problems and complaints.
The article is in need of intensive care. It is a rambling and incomprehensible mess. by Egghead06 <<< this was an untimely comment, it came after my contributions to the article had been removed, destroying the structure, and then complains the article is now a mess.
I have abandoned work on this article for now, It took hours to write, and after being ganged up on and accused of shabby work by others here who don't know me, or my work habits. I am retired, financially
stable, and I go to different sites to contribute knowledge I have studied. I write fairly well, and usually it becomes obvious that I am well studied and prepared, and my contributions are of value. If my work
is unwelcome, I will move on. I do not charge or get paid for any of my work, I do it for fun, satisfaction, accomplishment. Why do the rest of you work here? I assume for the same reasons.
Tillywilly17 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Something you could consider doing @Tillywilly17: is creating a private sandbox in your userspace at User:Tillywilly17/sandbox, where you can work on a copy of any article you want to improve, then ask other interested editors to review the draft in your sandbox, submit comments and by that measure work on major alterations in a calm, collaboration. Major changes to established articles, especially when done in stages, can be viewed as troublesome, as at times the live content may seem incomplete. Something to consider :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
So now this editor has gone off to his different sites, we are left with an article where major sections on personnel, lyrics, performances are unreferenced and often unencyclopedic in tone. Needs re-writing.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Fred I will do that. Egghead06, your sarcastic comments are not productive, you are not supportive, what have you done to fix these problems besides complain. Despite all problems, I am still here.
Tillywilly17 (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It is very hard to be supportive of anyone who is pointed in the direction of the need for verifying references and to not add original research and copyrighted material and then ignores that advice.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I wish another editor would step up and tell you not to post your negative trash anymore. I will get around to doing whatever when my blood pressure returns to normal and I can think straight again. Is this how you get your rocks off, just pounding a new editor into the ground? Go away, sadistic bully. Give me a chance to address your issues.Tillywilly17 (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────── Please remain CIVIL. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Images of labels/sleeves in infoboxes

There is a disagreement at "San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)" over which image should be used in the infobox - the label from the original US Ode single release, or a picture sleeve from a Benelux issue. Is there any guidance on these matters, or do interested editors wish to chip in on that article's talk page? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Songs/Archive 21".