Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Synopsis section on Regulate (song)

It's all very amusing, but highly unencyclopedic. Comments requested re section deletion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If a song has a narrative, I see no reason for not having such a section. That isn't to say the section doesn't have its problems - overly verbose, uncited, editorializing, etc. I would prefer to see it cut-down, sourced and have information regarding the music added as we would normally see in a 'composition' section. --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Crimewave (Crystal Castles/HEALTH song) - Article Title Needs Changing!

There is no other song article with the name of "Crimewave" and when you search 'Crimewave' it does not immediately direct to the disambiguation page, making it very difficult to find the article!

The song is not by Crystal Castles/HEALTH either and is by Crystal Castles vs. HEALTH. By retitling the article to "Crimewave (song)" the long title issue is also solved and since their is only one single released with the title of "Crimewave" it would make finding the article much more easier. -- --Jazminerocks (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Although next time you spot something similar you can do the move yourself, see Help:Moving a page. --JD554 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of appearance

The song Nutbush City Limits was originally recorded in 1973 and then re-recorded in 1988 and 1991 by Tina Turner; there are three separate infoboxes reflecting this in the article. However, there is also an infobox detailing a cover of the song released by Bob Seger in 1976. How should these infoboxes appear in sequence? Should they be ordered chronologically (Turner 1973, Seger 1976, Turner 1988, Turner 1991); or, considering that the article is primarily about Ms. Turner's versions of the song (with no disrespect intended to Mr. Seger), should the cover version's infobox instead follow the original artist's infoboxes (Turner 1973, 1988, and 1991; Seger 1976)? - Apo-kalypso (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Infobox changes above, which has a bearing. Further comments are invited there. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre of songs

Arising from some recent strange edits to songs, this is an issue not unrelated to the above discussion. Is it possible to judge the genre of a song, given that they can be done in many different styles? I cannot find a guideline about best practice for this. I did find this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 3#Songs by genre, but it didnt get any response. When assessing the genre of a recording do members of this project look at the band, listen to the song, or even go find reliable sources that describe it? Is it best to be general about genres, eg. Queen's songs are rock music or, sometimes pop music, rather than say Music Hall, or [[Jazz] or Rock and roll, as individually they might be categorized. Just trying to test the water here and see if some general guidelines could be established.--SabreBD (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre is no different from any other fact presented on Wikipedia: we should not judge for ourselves, only repeat what reliable sources say. The genres mentioned in the infobox should be verifiable using inline citations in the primary text—often left undone in practice, fuelling the ongoing genre churn we see as editors add/remove genres according to their own opinions. We should possibly draw greater attention to the need to source genres in the guidelines. PL290 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It may well be worth drawing greater attention to the need for sources, and unltimately that must be the basis for any fact on Wikipedia, but I suspect that a lot of songs, while in themselves notable and possible to source, are not described in reliable sources as having a genre, or where they are described it is in terms of influences (eg. "a bluesy rock number": the problem here is that some editors will say it is blues rock, but it is no more blues rock than a wine taster detecting a hint of Savignon in a wine is drinking orange juice). In these cases is it valid to default to sources that generally describe the acts genre, which can be sourced or better just to leave the line blank? I raise this issue because in reverting some strange changes, based on what an editor can "hear" in a song, I responded by saying "find some sources", but was aware that it was difficult to find sources to support what was already there for genre of the song (even though it was entirely logical). I am sure regular editors to this project and performers spend a lot of time reverting such genre edits: I am more focused on genres, so I spend most of my time reverting bizzare and unsourced additions of performers and songs.--SabreBD (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Image for music video section of Halfway Gone

I have a question regarding the "Music video" section of the article, Halfway Gone. Currently, I am working on the article Halfway Gone to make it good article status. Should the image that is there now be in the music video section? Or should there be no image in that section at all? Thank you for you comments. Rp0211 (talk2me) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for referencing a track listing?

I am having difficulty with referencing the CD Single and Digital EP Limited track listings for "Dirty Talk (song)". Am I allowed to use eCRATER or PerfectBeat.com to reference the track listings for this article? Or are they unreliable/unaccepted sources? -- Jazminerocks (Talk) 07:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility Issues

For the full discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style § Other implications.

A recent update to the accessibility guidelines at WP:ACCESS#Data tables requires the use of "scope="col"" and "scope="row"" for table column and row headers. This is so that screen readers will repeat the relevant column and row headers when moving from cell to cell in a table.

The current samples given don't include the scope for either columns or rows. For columns it is easily added (and the use of colspan etc doesn't cause problems). There is an issue over the row header however.

Using the existing samples as a base these could be re-worked. Therefore...

Looks OK to me. Although I'd put the references next to the dates as that is what is being verified. Also there may be issues regarding the rowspans. Currently WP:ACCESS#Data tables says colspan and rowspan may cause problems, but they aren't proscribed. However, there is a discussion at WT:ACCESS#Colspan and rowspan: issue or not? which may clarify (or not!). --JD554 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I generally don't care for reflinks-only columns. I'd rather have them on just the dates even if they're also supporting the format, than have them in a separate column. JD554 says put the refs on the dates, because that's what's being verified, but I think Lil-unique1 is aiming at verifying the whole shebang for each country. Maybe that'll change your viewpointses. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

← Is it necessary (or automatic) for the text in the first column (album or song title) be centered? Left-aligned makes more sense to me. - eo (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the first column should be left-aligned the syntax for data tables appears to over-ride this and I've tried all of the usual input formatting to alter this but whenever you use the !scope="col" it automatically centre aligns this... --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Darn. I dont mind it too much for album titles but it seems rather excessive to boldface and center-align a song title. - eo (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree completely. Especially when you begin to roll out these changes for Charts and release history tables it means that chart names will be centrilised and in bold as will country names as given in the example above. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, they're headings. Table headings (the <th> element in HTML, which is what the Wikimedia software used by WP generates from the wikitable "!" code) are typically displayed as centered bold by most browsers. (That's why the !align="left"|Title code that I occasionally find in tables is so pointless; the browser's already taken care of it.) And because they're logically headings, it's appropriate that they be displayed as headings, so centered bold doesn't bother me. It looks right to me, and I've already decided I like it better.
An alternative to this would be to devise a CSS class which would somehow be applied to table row headings, whose rule would incite left-alignment rather than the default centering. Along that path are (at least) two obstacles: (1) we would have to get a centralized style accepted by the guardians of the WM or WP software (after getting it accepted by the WP community), an obstacle Jack Merridew has yet to overcome in his crusade among the Film folks; and (2) we'd still have to add the class name to the row headings, because I'm not sure the scope="row" is sufficient to help the site CSS recognize which <th> headings should be left-aligned, and which not.
My sincere apologies for tossing HTML and CSS terminology around. I hope it's not off-putting for those who don't care about that kind of stuff. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rights and License

IWBN if a song's page would state who the current copyright holder is and what license she uses for a song [or: unknown]. Amazon.de is giving out "free" mp3's of a Don't_Cry_for_Me_Argentina recording and from that wikipedia page it is not clear to me if this song has a special or permissive license. JCN (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Under US Copyright Law, all copyrighted songs are subject to a "compulsory license," which means that, for the purposes of sound recording, anyone can produce a record with any song on it, without the permission of the author(s). The fee is a standard fee, and ASCAP monitors record contents and sales, and sends a royalty check for the amount to the composer(s) every quarter-year. That is, permission to record the song is not needed, but fees for the use must still be paid. For the purposes of stage or film performance, however, permission of the copyright holder is required. So, for example, if Barbra Streisand wants to record "Blue Moon" on her next album, she does not need permission, nor does she need permission to have her orchestrators and arrangers compose any accompaniment they want. But if she wants to sing that song in a film, or on tour, she must receive permission from the copyright holder(s). Permission is not "automatic" in any sense whatsoever. Fred Astaire's widow withheld permission for many of his film clips to be used for years after his death; they could not even be used at the Kennedy Center tribute to GINGER ROGERS! Furthermore, if Streisand does record this song, and some filmmaker wants to have the recording playing in the background of a scene (like on a radio, e.g.), he must receive permission. Even Streisand herself would require permission to use her own recording in a film of hers from the copyright holders (Estates of Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, or their successors). That's why, at the end of a film, one frequently sees in the credits "thank you"s to many music publishing companies for the right to use particular songs; you never see such things on CD covers etc. Ever notice that? How's that for complication? All the above refers only to the copyright in a (composed) song, not in the sound recording itself, which is an entirely different issue. In your example, Amazon probably pays fees to ASCAP for the mp3 sales. Hope this helps. 66.108.89.8 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Allen Roth

Proposed merger of Infobox song and Infobox single

There is currently a TfD discussion regarding merging {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. Members of this project may wish to contribute to the discussion, which can be found here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Millennium Song

I have multiple concerns with the recently created The Millennium Song which I have documented within the article and on the significant editors talk page - Michael.greenacre (talk · contribs). My main concerns are RS, COPYVIO (but frankly not clear) and possibly COI as name of the author of the lyrics mentioned in the article is the same name as the editor. I picked this up as an un-patrolled article and feel I need to follow it through. Anyone got any advice here please? --Senra (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to do something about this

Both Regulate and Gin and Juice contain a "synopsis" section that is essentially just a long running joke between editors of these page. Most of said synopsizes are overtly long discussions of the songs that reads like a novel and ends up making the singers of said songs look rather foolish. An example from the Gin and Juice page includes the following passage

  • Mr. Dogg's tale starts at 2 am in his home, where a party has been taking place and is continuing late into the night, because his mother is away. Women are copulating in his living room, presumably in a lesbian fashion, and intend to do so until 6 am, when they will leave. Mr. Dogg and his associates decide to join the sapphic women. Ever-prepared, they pull condoms out of their pockets before turning off the lights and shutting the doors behind them.

While the whole thing is funny the fact that this is on Wikipedia in an article namesake is problematic for a couple of reasons. My main concern is that these are in no way encyclapedic and makes Wikipedia editors look like a dumb bunch of forum trolls: having these segments on our site does nothing to improve Wikipedia's reputation and more two hurt it. Secondly this is original research, look at the above quote while the above does happen in Gin and Juice, here it's presented in a totally different context than how it's presented in the song.

I present this problem to you because it seems Wikipedia at large has to do something about this, I tried to delete the synopsis on the Regulate page twice with both time my edits quickly being reverted both by anonymous IP adresses (both different). Obviously this is bad news, it's essentially a misuse of Wikipedia that editors cannot contain themselves. so I'm bringing it to Wikiproject Songs to see what they can do.--Deathawk (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you request semi-protection of those pages, to prevent IP edits while the articles settle into better shape. PL290 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Single or album

The Japanese musician Superfly (artist) is releasing a new record this week titled Wildflower & Cover Songs: Complete Best 'Track 3'. The artist, record label, and various music news sources and sales outlets label the release as a single. However, the single also comes with what is essentially a separate 15-track album on a second CD. The Oricon and Recording Industry Association of Japan appear to be labeling this whole release as an album. Do we go with the artist and record label, or the music charting news sources?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is effectively dealing with what the hell infobox do we use/what do we classify the release as in the infobox (if these two templates have merged): Template:Infobox single or Template:Infobox album with some sort of modifier on it that makes it an EP or whatever else there is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also noting that sources (including the official site) label the entire release as a 2CD set, not just a single with a bonus album tacked on to it. --Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove succession boxes

The section under Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Chart performance, charts and succession should be changed to just "Charts performance and charts". I think the sentence, "If a song is a number-one single, a succession box can also be included in this section", should be removed, and the practice of adding succession boxes in songs articles should be highly discouraged. I have started a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)#Remove succession boxes and your comments are welcome there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Per a discussion at WP talk:MOS (charts), I'd like to start removing succession boxes from album and song articles, but it would help give me a leg to stand on if the statement mentioned above were removed from this project page, so other editors don't have this as a point of reference. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Prods

I am posting prods here when the articles have a {{songs}}, as I do for any other wikiproject. Part of good faith notification of interested parties. I understand why your are deleting my posts here, and no offense is taken. I will continue to post them as sometimes I am wrong, and what to continue to give your project the opportunity to check my work. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As a by-the-by, rather than prodding them, why not be Bold be and merge them into the album they came from - if appropriate? That way no "information" is lost, can easily be reverted if contentious or additional information comes to light. Not that I think any of your nominations have been contentious in first place. Cheers Richhoncho (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleting article does not really lose anything, It stays on the server, it can be easily recovered. I personally don't merge them because all the content is unreferenced (I find them working from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles) and I have an aversion to adding unreferenced content (or moving it, though I do on occasion). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
All good points, but as an example I have redirected your prod below to the relevant album. If you don't like this course of action feel free to revert me, I won't complain! Richhoncho (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine, I would prefer you wait until after the prod expires though. What happens (not every time but often enough) some fan of Roger Waters will come along and decide there should be an article about the song. One thing leads to another and they undo the redirect, restoring the last version. Because it is an established article it misses most of the new editor & new article reviews, it goes directly back into Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 (which hopefully we have done by then). Because it is now sitting in a empty and deleted category someone working Category:Articles lacking sources will see it (in the list with all the months) and look into it. There is little chance that article is improved or the song became notable, and it has been prodded once, so now it has to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to get deleted and made into a redirect or else the whole cycle starts over. Jeepday (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, yet unverified information keeps coming back.

RE: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/I_Don't_Like_Mondays

Having removed unverifiable content, I got this response.

RE: (cur | prev) 04:36, 10 September 2010 IbLeo (talk | contribs) (7,955 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 86.18.176.174; Per WP:CONS, once reverted you should seek compromise before going further; this is not settled yet. (TW)) (undo)

How do I seek compromise? There are two performances in San Diego in February 1979 where Geldof clearly states he saw/heard the story in London. Then in October 1979 after the story has probably been embellished by numerous interviews he is in Atlanta by a telex machine. There is no evidence that Geldof was in Atlanta on 29th January 1979. There was a tour of radio stations in January 1979 that was widely reported by Melody Maker and it is very likely that Geldof was in Atlanta at the radio station and there was a telex machine, but not on the 29th January 1979 when he would have returned to London. The facts are: i) Geldof saw/read a report on the incident ii) He wrote the song based on that iii) It was performed a month later in San Diego These are all verifiable. Whether he heard about this in Atlanta or London is unknown as his quotes contradict each other, so that part of the entry should be removed. In all likelihood the February explanation is correct, but as it was not as interesting a story when they were promoting the single.

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. When it isn't it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nadia Ali Articles

I have created articles for the singer-songwriter Nadia Ali. Could anyone please review the articles Crash and Burn, Love Story, Fine Print and Fantasy and suggest any improvements I could make to them. Thanks! Hassan514 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a quick look and did a little for you :)—Iknow23 (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Just saw that. Thank you! :) Hassan514 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You're Welcome :)—Iknow23 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Forces (song)

The article Forces (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Freddie Freeloader

The article Freddie Freeloader has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs (and tracks) generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"WikiProject Songs/Archive 6"
Song
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 6"
Song
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 6"
Song

Returning to a previous discussion from last December (see WT:SONGS/Archive 4), I'd like to propose that the featured artist not be included in any chronology for the infobox for singles and that the chronology for the main artist does not include songs on which they are "featured". One reason is the use of using "singles chronology" in some cases and just "chronology" in others just because one of the songs in the chronology "features" the artist. I would say it should be similar to the WP:ALBUMS recommendation for studio albums ("In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations"), so singles chronology should show singles for the primary artist only.

Maybe there could be a "featured chronology" only listing songs that the featured artist is listed as such. For example, for Kesha, on Blah Blah Blah (song), her singles chronology would be "Tik Tok", "Blah Blah Blah", "Your Love Is My Drug"; while on Dirty Picture, her featured chronology would be "Right Round", "Dirty Picture", "My First Kiss". Or why put "singles chronology" at all and leave it as Foo chronology no matter what. It's an infobox for singles, so it seems implied that it's a singles chronology. The infobox for albums doesn't show it as Foo albums chronology.

To summarize, with examples on the right, the options I have presented are:

  1. Singles chronology only for the primary artist(s) singles on which they are the lead artist
  2. Singles chronology for the primary artist (as lead only) and a featured chronology for the featured artist
    • a featured chronology would only contain singles on which that artist is credited as "featured"
  3. Full singles chronology whether lead or featured and remove the word "singles" from chronology in all instances.

Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Item 3. It is too confusing to try to compile separate lists of ONLY featuring and 'their OWN singles'.-Iknow23 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Items 1 and 3. As I believe I said in the last discussion, being featured on someone else's single does not make it a single of the featured artist, especially when it is not on their album, they are not promoting it, etc. Take David Guetta for example, he doesn't usually sing, he just writes the music, which I do not see as being any different than a regular writer of the song, yet he is a featured artist or features other artists. As for item 2, while this would be better than the current misleading way we do it now, it might be too hard to do as said by Iknow23 (I'm open for convincing). Also, it never even occured to me that the "singles" in "singles chronology" was not necessary, but I agree, it is singles infobox, what else would the chronology be for? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I would like to revise my position. In cases of music performers that DO NOT use featured artists, ALL of their chronos can still correctly be called 'singles chronology'. But if they have 'featured artists' then IF the featured artist chrono is there, IT CANNOT say 'singles chrono' for them because it is NOT their single.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just wondering why there is a problem with the inclusion of a featured artist? I'm not sure how I feel about this one way or the other (yet), but is it causing problems or confusion? It seems to me that making a separate chronology for "featured" songs seems like a lot of unnecessary work, especially if things are fine as they are now. - eo (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is with the word 'singles'. All the items listed must be singles by the artist and not just a featured presence for that artists chrono header to have the word singles.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Better explanation The second example is actually true "Dirty Picture" Single by Taio Cruz featuring Kesha Taio Cruz singles chronology, but you have to go to BOTH the other singles articles to verify that he is the 'main artist' on them and not just a 'featured' one. Example 3 eliminates the need to visit the other singles just to verify he is the 'main artist' on them because it no longer matters. Just as long as he is INVOLVED with them is all that counts there.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for example 3. It is a infobox for 'singles' so it already represents a singles chronology (whether as lead or featured artist). No one has to worry about adding "singles" to the Chronology field in the infobox when using that or the Extra chronology option. If acceptable, can someone update the single infobox template so the default chronology shows up as "Foo chronology" and not "Foo singles chronology"? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Lets just go for number three... because this is getting all to confusing lol. we have way too many rules about when to use X and when to use Y. Just stick to example 3 where it is just chronologies of those featured. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you work from what information is being presented and work from there. To expound on what eo wrote, if there is no problem with the way it's being handled, and if the proposed change doesn't make something clearer, then one wonders why propose the change. In a singles chronology, it seems like any participant credited as the artist (as opposed to musicians who are credited in an album's liner notes as having performed on the track, no matter how famous), be it lone artist, duet artist, or featured artist, should be acknowledged with a chronology, because it's equally relevant to both artists' careers how much exposure either is getting, what artistic or commercial choices followed what other ones for both, and simply their track record (no pun intended) on the charts, in a way that aids navigability, which is the point of those chronologies, no? If their participation was significant enough for the artist who invited them (or agents or the record company or whomever may have made the decision) to give them such prominent credit (again, instead of just relegating a guest appearance to the album notes), then who are we to second-guess their marketing choice that this isn't actually part of the singles chronology of the secondary artist?
Incidentally, the question of whose single it is has little to do with whose album the single appears on. There are cases where singles do not appear on any artist's album, they appear only on a soundtrack. There are cases where a duet or dually-credited single appears on both artists' albums. There are even singles that are released many months in advance of or with no regard to an album. Yes, it seems a little redundant in a singles infobox to state it's a singles chronology, but no, I don't think that the word "singles" in the chronology adds any greater emphasis on the question of whose single it is. Put another way, there are movies and TV series where there is clearly a single lead and everybody else is a supporting player, but more often than not there are two leads or three or four. In those situations it wouldn't be inappropriate to say of any of those leads' work that it's "their" movie in a chronology of their work; yet such a call can get to be very subjective. There is no subjectivity when the text on the cover of a single (or whatever other way the single is marketed) tells us that the single is by "X featuring Y" or "X with Y" or "X and Y". They're telling us that Y shares billing with X, regardless of how we or anybody else may feel about that. Abrazame (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Nicely put and thought out. I'd just prefer to have something that will not have someone's "singles chronology" in an infobox for one single and just the artist's "chronology" in another, regardless of any featuring credit. One or the other would great, with no disrespect to other's very passionate opinions here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree strongly with Abrazame's assessment. If people have a problem with the word "singles" then go ahead and take it out (option 3) but ultimately I don't think even that is necessary. As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong) there doesn't seem to be an outcry for change or mass confusion by the average reader regarding anyone's singles chronology, so I think a big change (e.g. making a separate "featured chronology") is a mistake... too much work and no need for it. "Featured" singles are already separated out in discography pages so I think that things should be kept as-is for navigational purposes. - eo (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese media and the tilde

There is currently discussion on whether or not to use the tilde/hyphen/etc. as found in titles of Japanese media as it appears in the Japanese media rather than modifying it into another punctuation format on the English Wikipedia. As articles in this WikiProject's purview may be affected, users here are requested to contribute to the discussion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of Poor Poor Pitiful Me

A spirited family discussion over authorship of Poor Poor Pitiful Me. All recordings I have seen credit authorship to Warren Zevon. However a family member claims George Gobels sang the first verse on his TV show in the 50's before segueing into monologue as per usual habit. Cannot find any clues on googling Gobels. Perhaps someone who watched the show can respond to this? 4.231.211.106 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Rest easy. Performance and songwriting are two different activities. Here's conclusive evidence that Zevon wrote the song without any co-writers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion concerning musical infoboxes

Please see the discussion here. J04n(talk page) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Hi guys & girls. Just wondered if there would be universal support for modifying the single infobox template. I know its been brought up several times but it is something we should think about. This is an example from an international sister wikipedia.Example#infobox There are some elements i'd like to copy others i wouldn't. Heres my suggestions:

  1. merge the song and single infoboxes to simple make one infobox titles "Song" with an option field like: 'singlerelease=' (yes or no)
  2. remove current single (this is obvious) and incorporate the example infobox way of listing predecor and successor singles.
  3. the infobox automatically creating a border etc.

The idea is to make it easier for users when wanting to use the infobox. Once we can establish a list of changes we can begin one-by-one. The merging of song and single infoboxes is probably most significant. --01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I definitely support #2, always thought it was a bit pointless. Like on TV episodes, we'll link to the last and next episode, but we don't include the name of current episode between them, because it's the subject of that article so not necessary. No opinion on #1 and #3 just yet :-) AnemoneProjectors 02:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
On #2: (I suppose the concept of "single" is now blurred, with the advent of digital downloads etc., but the concept of predecessor and successor singles continues to have relevance for older releases.) I quite like the current single entry. It's not a link, it just visually places the article in context. A nice technique!
On #1: yes. It needs to take the following into account:
  • A song may be released by zero, one, or multiple artists
  • A song release can take the form of a single, an album track, a digital download...
  • A song may be released under slightly different variations of the same title
(see You've Really Got a Hold on Me for an example of these points)
In short, I think the Single infobox should be retired, and the Song infobox should enable us to identify zero, one, or multiple song release sections within it, each showing the artist, title, and media type along with the other release details. PL290 (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes there must be a way of incorporating all of that into one single infobox? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've created a new version of {{Infobox Song}} that accepts a new parameter, Releases. The new version is at at {{Infobox Song/sandbox}}. One or more suitable templates may be passed as the Releases parameter; I've created {{Infobox song release}} for this purpose (which is currently just a copy of {{Infobox single}}); a bunch of those are passed as the Releases parameter to the Song infobox. I have not addressed cosmetics but the basic idea seems simple enough to implement. Please see User:PL290/Sandbox/Song article, which is a copy of You've Really Got a Hold on Me using the above templates. PL290 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Now I think we're getting somewhere. Is there not a away for the sub-infoboxes to align equally so it doesn't look like they're nested within? And is not possible to cover the 'Releases' field in the main infobox into a proper heading? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Both of those things will certainly be possible, and I agree they should both happen. The quick mock-up is just meant to enable us to consider the basic idea first. I'll aim to look at taking the cosmetics further when I get a chance, but if anyone else wants to have a go meanwhile, obviously feel free. PL290 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Also just thought some people might object to this. They might prefer it if the infoboxes were next to the relevant section of said article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The nested template approach used for the mock-up will allow that. An article's Song Release infoboxes can either be embedded within its Song infobox, or placed at other locations. Obviously we should keep that in mind when implementing the cosmetics (border etc) so that we get appropriate rendering in both cases. PL290 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm its worth considering. I to will have a play about with these and then together we can come up with a firm proposal to present to the community. If we give them a finished product (or semi-finished) it will be easier to engage opinion. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the nesting is unnecessary, and we should simply place the Song Release infoboxes after the Song infobox anyway. PL290 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think merging the song and infoboxes is a good move. Once that's done I would like to play around with the layout. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, we seem to need to clarify what we want to achieve here. We basically have two presentation options:
  1. Song infobox is followed by zero or more Song Release infoboxes (which are possibly placed at arbitrary positions in the article), or
  2. Song infobox contains the said Song Release infoboxes.
(The implementation used so far for the mock-up allows either of the above, to suit the article.)
In the case of option 2, the Song Release infoboxes will, by definition, have the appearance of being nested within the Song infobox. The current simple mock-up does not attempt to lay them out nicely, so at the moment they have borders and gaps around them, but that is just a layout question. Feel free to play with the layout. PL290 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see this moving forward at last; and the overall solution proposed is a good one. Before we go further, though, can we convert the new template to use {{Infobox}}? We can also make the template (or perhaps the individual release template) emit the [1] microformat, as already emitted by Infobox album. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the best way forward with this? At the moment I'm not able to devote time to working on the templates myself, but perhaps someone else is interested in doing so. It's probably best to limit the exercise to simply enhancing {{Infobox song}} to support the optional addition of one or more {{Infobox song release}} templates. (If, as envisaged, that makes {{Infobox single}} redundant, then so be it; we don't have to decide that as a prerequisite.) PL290 (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Johnson songs

It seems that right now there are several Robert Johnson songs that are stubs. I'm wondering which ones should be deleted. --Rock'N'More (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is confusion between what is a notable subject and what is a notable article, my opinion (and fully aware others will not only disagree with me, but could be right as well!) there is only one song there that doesn't hit notability in my book. The others have all been recorded by other significant artists, plus one should not underestimate the importance of Robert Johnson. All in my opinion, which is not quite WP! --Richhoncho (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition

I hope no one will see a problem with this addition. 夢追人YumeChaser 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Girando En El Tiempo

The article Girando En El Tiempo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Walk On By (Dionne Warwick song)

The question has been raised at Talk:Walk On By (Dionne Warwick song) of renaming the article. Although Warwick was the first to record the song, and her version is probably the most well known - at least in the US - there have been many later versions. For example, at least two other versions of the song charted higher in the UK. So, I favour renaming. The two most obvious article names seem to me to be Walk On By (Bacharach and David song), named for the (well known) songwriters, or Walk On By (1964 song). However, there is another, different and earlier, song, Walk On By (Leroy Van Dyke song), which is named for the singer rather than the writers or the year of that song. Should the name given to that article be consistent with the name agreed for the Walk On By (Dionne Warwick song) article? Any views or comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My preference is for "Bacharach and David", especially over "1964". This would make more sense if there are other articles also titled with "Bacharach and David". Are there any? I'm guessing also that the capital "On" is correct per naming conventions? Shouldn't be "on", should it? Just makin' sure. - eo (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
What eo said. Also, these articles (whatever they're named) should have hatnotes on them, and they don't currently. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The capitalisation issue was discussed here. Unless there's any opposition in the next few days I'll move it to Walk On By (Bacharach and David song). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm still in favor of the artist being used in the parenthetical disambiguation using the name of the first notable artist to record it, in this case, Dionne Warwick and so as is. Using the year as an disambiguator works when multiple artists record popular versions of the same song in the same time frame as was often the case in the 50s and earlier (Young Love (1956 song) is a common example used). Songwriters could be an option for these, but there's an awful lot that don't have wiki-articles, and a lot of people wouldn't recognize the song by that (writers like Bacharach being possible exceptions). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Whoever has recorded the song it will always be a song written by Bacharach and David. No contest. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Moved per clear majority. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Goodbye Alice in Wonderland (song)

The article Goodbye Alice in Wonderland (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, Article clearly states does does not meet notability, no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice on Everyone (Olympics song)

Hi there, I have plans to bring Everyone (Olympics song) up to GA-class (or FA-class) as part of a Featured topic. Can anyone advice me on how I can further improve the article so as to prepare it for nomination? I'm relatively inexperienced in writing music-related articles. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There's something called a Peer review, about which I know next to nothing, which I believe is a more formal way of doing what you're doing here: asking for comments and criticisms. I don't know what advantages that formal route offers you.
The article itself doesn't seem like an FA-class article to me, as it still seems incomplete. But I think GA is within reach even though I've noticed a few little things as I skimmed over it. Briefly:
  1. I think more references are needed in general. It seems there are a lot of statements that need support but don't have a ref attached.
  2. The line in "Composition" beginning "It is interesting to note..." is pure WP:OR (and violates WP:NOTED/MOS:NOTED, too), and should be removed, unless reliable sources have noted it themselves, in which case you might just re-word it.
  3. The "Composition" section lists representatives of continents, so the national flags are inappropriate per MOS:FLAG. Also, the text should be corrected to, "The song was sung by ..."
  4. Check that the chart you mention, 987FM, is usable under the guidelines at WP:CHARTS. 987FM appears to be just one radio station, but maybe in Singapore it's really the official chart, recognized there and in neighboring countries.
  5. Suggested correction "such as the Float@Marina Bay" to "such as The Float@Marina Bay".
  6. It appears The New Paper should be italicized.
  7. I don't see how the Cheer songs relate to the song "Everyone".
  8. Ken Lim appears in three slots in the infobox (because it's all his work), and is mentioned in the lead, but then he's not mentioned again in the Background section (nor elsewhere). How did he write the song? How did "Everyone" get to be the song? Was there a competitition? Or was it an inside job that he managed all alone? Did nobody criticize the song choice or the involvement of Lim? Etc.
  9. I think "artist" would be preferable to "artiste" throughout, but I'm not sure enough to insist it be changed.
Enough from me for now. Good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I was looking at general advice on improving the article, since I'm not too concerned about the phrasings and stuff right now. Thanks for the suggestions; I'll definitely take note. I'm not sure however how the Charts section can be expanded (as I've seen from other song articles); same with the Performance and Composition sections etc. Is there anywhere I can find reviews and critiques of the song?

I might try a peer review, although not right now since I think it could do with some expansion first. Thanks for the feedback! ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Haven't Found

The article Haven't Found has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proper formatting for double A-side singles?

What is the correct way of using quotation marks for double-A side singles? Using So Here We Are/Positive Tension as an example, should it be "So Here We Are/Positive Tension" or "So Here We Are"/"Positive Tension"? PC78 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with the latter (two songs = two titles = two pairs of quote marks), but please don't just take my word for it; wait for some other, more experienced editors to drop by. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As it's two songs it should be "So Here We Are"/"Positive Tension". To me, "So Here We Are/Positive Tension" would imply a medley or something similar. AnemoneProjectors 11:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought, though the other format seems to be more commonly used, presumably because of limitations in the infobox and such, i.e. you would need to put |Name=So Here We Are"/"Positive Tension which isn't terribly intuitive. Hmmm, I've got a few template-based ideas for this, so I'll come back to it later. PC78 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely should be two quotes (two songs). Also, the problem there is the article itself. The page should be about a song, not a single. If both songs are notable enough then both songs would have their own histories, backgrounds, etc and therefore require separate articles. There have been a large number of these kinds of pages split up, but a lot still exist. The fact that they were put together on the same single is incidental. What we really should be shooting for is "So Here We Are"/"Positive Tension". My 2¢. - eo (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Here are a few good examples: "The Long and Winding Road"/"For You Blue", "Maggie May"/"Reason to Believe", "You're Makin' Me High"/"Let It Flow". - eo (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you there, it seems like a general argument for having articles about songs rather than singles. My own 2¢: It is not "incidental" that two songs were released together if that is the source of their notability, and such things as track listings, promotion, release history and chart success will be the same for both. Splitting, especially for underdeveloped articles, would result in an unnecessary duplication of information. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, especially pertaining to underdeveloped articles, but I was going with the same thinking as is used with cover versions, e.g. multiple versions of the same song are in the same article, thus the argument that an article is about the song - the composition - not the physical format of "a single". Anyhoo, whichever way this particular scenario plays out, I'd still use the quotes around both titles (your original question). - eo (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Without opening and closing the quotes for each discrete song, it indicates not only one track, but one title, a single song. Even for a medley there should be quotes opening and closing around each title, as they are separate songs regardless of how they are being performed in that instance. Recitative operas or musicals, for example, could be perceived as just one long song, but of course they're not punctuated as such. Abrazame (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, another question relating to double A sides. For the page title, should the / have a space either side or not? I'm seeing quite a few examples of this, e.g. John the Revelator / Lilian and Blasphemous Rumours / Somebody. PC78 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would apply the same rule as for split albums (see WP:MOSALBUM). I.e. leave a space on each side of the /. It improves readability IMHO. Allow me to kick in a side remark: As the name of the project implies, I thought we write articles about songs, not singles. So should we really write one article about two songs just because they were released as a double-A side single? – IbLeo(talk) 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you about leaving a space between the titles. 夢追人YumeChaser 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have always encountered (in professional writing) and used "Song A" / "Song B", deliberately using the spaces for clarity as in my opinion "Song A"/"Song B" is not explicitly clear. Equally double quotation marks must be used because a Double-Aside release compromises of two seperate parts. IMO readibility is the crux of the issue here and both the spaces and extra quote marks provide that. A template e.g. {{double a-side}} would prove useful e.g. {{double a-side|Song A|Song B}} especially for pre-formatting infoboxes. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The comments I received at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 117#Double-A side singles and spaced slashes suggested that we should be following WP:SLASH, i.e. using a spaced slash for items that contain at least one space, but an unspaced slash for items that contain no spaces. If there are no objections, I'll add something to the "Style" section on the front page. PC78 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Songs written by Richie Sambora

Greetings to anyone who'll read this post. I just noticed that the 35 songs listed in the category aren't obviously that much. I don't know how to edit the page, so if someone knows how to proceed or just wants to give a hand, I'll appreciate that very much. Richie deserves to have his related pages in proper shape!--Claudia07822002 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't edit the category page; one adds the category to articles that fit the category. So find a song written by him that is not already in the category, and add the category to it. See Help:Category for more. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubling up

WP:Songs members: I am not a fan of this trend of "doubling up" on singles pages. (See example). I've seen this with a few singles. When this is done, it makes the page too cluttered and sloppy. Just an input here, but I would like to see the singles on each of their own pages. Even if the song is a remake of another, it would make more sense (and less cluttered) to just link to the remaker's page, at the bottom. I know I can do this and edit it, but because I've seen several like this, I felt the need to bring it up to this project. Thank you for your time. NECRATSpeak to me 06:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Song articles relate to "songs" and not "singles" which is why whenever an article is created <song title (single)> it is very quickly renamed and this also suggests that there is no place for different articles for different recordings on WP. Although there was (is?) a discussion on this very issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions the reality is that these articles are pretty much merged by the wider WP community as being about exactly the same song. I prefer all the information about a song on one page and that pretty much is how it works on non-music parts of WP. Which only leaves your complaint about pages being "too cluttered and sloppy" which probably means you should be joining the discussion on song infoboxes. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge Richhoncho's note that this is the way the project officially approaches the articles, yet I would point out that we need to enforce this point not only when people want to separate out a cover song from the original version article, but also when threads address Double A-side singles that are covered in articles about the single and given the dual-song title. It's a little bit like how Don't Ask Don't Tell prosecutes those who tell (about themselves) but not those who ask (or tell about others).
To the OP's example, when a song is introduced in its most notable recording, giving greater coverage to subsequent covers is a real problem. I'm not talking about originalists who argue their cult or classic band or small-country star's original version deserves primacy over major international pop artists' covers or even one-hit-wonder kitsch covers that chart (often on the grounds that "they wrote it", despite the fact that a great many artists record songs they don't write, or co-wrote with someone, while most of these articles give no more data or context about the writing than in the infobox, even when they are by these cult or classic bands). The problem is with random covers by marginally notable artists that either dented charts in small, obscure markets or even did not chart at all, yet which are given not only an infobox of equal weight but the inevitable slew of different release formats and tracklists and remix variations. This is compounded by the fact that prior to the late 1980s most tracks were released in one or two versions in a few primary territories, while a great many tracks since then are contemporaneously released by a single artist in as many as two dozen different remixes, spread across several discrete releases and media formats in a plethora of territories.
That is exemplified to some degree by the OP's example, "Let The Music Play". The original version was the signature song of a debut artist who took it top 10 pop and #1 dance in the biggest music market in the world, whose records sold in the millions; the song & artist are credited as being at the forefront of popularizing a subgenre of music, freestyle. The section about the cover version is equal to or greater than that for the original, despite the fact that there is no indication this cover achieved any measure of chart or pop culture success. This is nowhere near the most egregious example of this phenomenon, but it's something to think about in a project where we so value appropriate relative weight in articles that are only about one iteration of a subject.
I'm not a deletionist, though. The way I think we deal with this is mostly in the direction of beefing up the reliably sourced data about the more notable versions, not to remove data and context that may be of interest to a reader. (This is a real challenge when a song predates the internet era, as in this example from 1983, and is by an artist whose fame has not endured into the internet era in the manner of a U2 or a Madonna or even a Beatles or Elvis. Any idiot nowadays can get a thousand times the media coverage for the wispiest charting than exist for major hits of the past.)
However, I think it's reasonable to look at how we might condense some of these inappropriately weighted sections when they really do have an excessive degree of data and/or elaboration. To the example, the cover's infobox does not need to repeat the songwriter data, and the tracklists can be split into two or three columns for readers with the increasingly wider screens on today's home computers, columns which automatically restack vertically for users with the increasingly narrower screens on todays hand-held devices. And finally, when the cover gets its own section, it certainly doesn't need to be noted redundantly in a "covers" list immediately preceding it. These edits would reduce the size of the section only slightly in the case in question, but would vastly improve the excessiveness of some articles. Abrazame (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
My own personal opinion is that doubling up should not occur. If a cover is notable enough and has so much information that it even warrants an infobox, then it should have its own article. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be being doubled up in the first place. A simple one-sentence mention in the text should suffice. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
No offense to the performer Mary Kiani, but it seems to me that if her performance was not a cover of 'this' song that already had an article (and instead had to 'stand on it's own'), it would not be notable for an article at all. There is no charting action shown for her version, so why is it given so much space on the page?(echoing Abrazame)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
And echoing Melicans, "A simple one-sentence mention in the text should suffice." ... as is done with the other covers.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite, as above, merge the Kiani section into other recordings, there is no claim of notability. I am also tempted to do this now, but I shall leave for a little longer for others to consider. On a more general note, what I find incredulous, and the Kiani section is a prime example, we have a box with a listing of 12 different mixes and nobody has considered to write (with references) WHY these 12 mixes are different. This box tells us about the marketing of the song and nothing whatsover about the recording (in fact there is pitifully little about the song itself in the whole article). --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the lack of information in the page too, especially for a song considered a legend of it's time and one which is recurrent heavy in US airplay during rewind hours, and speciality shows. I appreciate the input, when I get some more time, I will respond to everyone's responses. The day (or is it night) job keeping me busy for the moment however. NECRATSpeak to me 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
OK Follow up to my follow up. Here is what I would like to see. Lets say , for example you have a famous single, like Alice In Chains' "Man in the box", arguably one of their most notable and recognizable singles to date. OK you have another band cover the song, but it doesn't chart or do much, despite being released on a major label. Then in that case, the song gets a line in the main article about the cover. [OTOH], lets say, a different band covers the song, and their cover also charts and gets notable recognition. If that happens, it makes more sense, to me, to have THAT cover have it's own page, with a mention in the article about the original song, and a director back to the original's page as well. I guess it can be argued, and i'm sure has been, what determines when a single is given an article or not. (Does it chart, does it sell gold, platnum, is it a "cult theme", etc.). I've just run across a number of singles which show covers, which frankly aren't worth the mention and infobox (as said above) they get., or they deserve their own page.
(To provide another good example of what I am talking about: see Venus, the Shocking Blue song that was also a big hit for Bananarama. These should be split into two pages, as they're both notable enough for it.) NECRATSpeak to me 06:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, articles are about songs, not recordings and not charts and WP pretty much deals with everything that way. If articles are about "songs" it's a nonsense to seperate articles into different versions - this is an encyclopedia, not a music site. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
PS. Obviously nothing above should overrule WP:SIZERULE. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes proposal

I've posted a proposal on the use of song and album succession boxes here if anyone is interested. 28bytes (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hey Mersh!

The article Hey Mersh! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Songs in musical theatre

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre#Songs from musicals: naming conventions regarding naming conventions of songs from musicals. Feel free to join! Yves (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The History of Western Civilisation

The article The History of Western Civilisation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Honk If You Love Fred Durst

The article Honk If You Love Fred Durst has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Song articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Song articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Love in This Club

A few more opinions, please, at Talk:Love in This Club, Pt. II#Merge proposal. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Recordings by Gayla Peevey

I was sure that I had a recording of Gayla Peevey singing "All I Want for Christmas is My Two Front Teeth," but I don't see a reference to that anywhere. I hope that someone can check this out. I know that I had her recording of "I Want a Hippopatamus for Christmas" with "Are My Ears on Straight" on the flip side. Maybe it was the George Rock recording of "...... Teeth" with Spike Jones that I had. HughFlo (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of I Like 2

The article I Like 2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ice-Coffin

The article Ice-Coffin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ich Bin Du

The article Ich Bin Du has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Image of the Invisible

The article Image of the Invisible has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of In the Club (US5 song)

The article In the Club (US5 song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Iname (song)

The article Iname (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahesta Boro

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

B'coz I Love You

Hello again! As I mentioned above, a group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song)

I have nominated Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Xwomanizerx (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New Math (song)

Should the article New_Math_(song) include the chorus (ending "... that only a child can do it")? In fact, should it contain the complete lyrics?

Also, near the end it says: "We're gonna do fractions!" I thought there may be also be a song about fractions; at the live show it could follow this one, maybe with an interval (I mean interval and not interval) in between. However I have not traced one so it's likely there isn't one. Does anyone know for sure? Whether there is or isn't, should that be mentioned in the article?

Heimdall 16:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimdall1973 (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of Karakuri Hitei

The article Karakuri Hitei has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Single issue

There is a discussion regarding a song's release as a single. I have been asked to participate, but I am not clear on what constitutes a single release enough to contribute. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of KHAOS/KINEMA

The article KHAOS/KINEMA has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Heartbreak Hotel

A GA review on Heartbreak Hotel is in progress and has been put on hold for an initial seven days to allow time to address issues raised. See Talk:Heartbreak Hotel/GA2. Assistance in developing the article would be welcomed. SilkTork *YES! 13:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kohoutek-Kometenmelodie

The article Kohoutek-Kometenmelodie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Künstliche Welten

The article Künstliche Welten has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of La Flor Del Paraíso

The article La Flor Del Paraíso has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh)

The article La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Invalid prod removed, see Talk:La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh)‎.Jdrewitt (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album chronology

While it may not relate directly to songs, members of this WikiProject may not be watching other relevant pages, which is why I am leaving this message here. There has been a discussion about changing the documentation of {{infobox album}} so that there is a single chronology of all of an artists' albums, rather than separate chronologies for studios, EPs, lives etcetera. So yeah, take a look and have your say. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wild Thing (Chip Taylor song)

I'm not sure about song articles, but this one seems a bit lyric heavy. Also, I'm not really sure why the Amanda Lear cover vesion has its own section... it doesn't seem to have any notability... am I missing something? 203.35.135.136 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed the lyrics as copyright infringement. I've left Amanda Lear in there, but I wouldn't object if somebody else thought she should be removed. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to identify these and get a friendly bot to remove from the external links? WP should not be endorsing coyright infringement! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support a bot or a person removing them. You can use the tag {{copyvioel}}, it includes a link to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works which says in part "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.". JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Useful, but once editors see it done as a bot task more might get the message. In the meantime, here's one for the list, www.songmeanings.net, any others to add? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lamentful Miss

The article Lamentful Miss has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

P.O.D. - Shine with Me

Can someone change the title of the page from "Shine With Me" to "Shine with Me"? According to song title rules, the word "with" should not be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.178.8.203 (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC) I already changed the title on the pages that links to the article, but they don't work yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.178.8.203 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done per capitalization rules at WP:CAPS. It's actually a so-called move; you can't do anything with the content of Shine With Me to make it become Shine with Me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new infobox: POSTHUMOUS ALBUM

There has been some talk that this project should clearly see and be involved in - it has led to a proposal of sorts for a new category called "POSTHUMOUS" for the Template:Infobox album ... Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Posthumous albums: Studio vs Compilation.Moxy (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC regarding use of succession boxes in song articles

There is currently an RFC taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. Interested parties are encouraged to participate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Locos De Amor

The article Locos De Amor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Modern

Modernbeats.com has the recording info about the recent songs that were released. They duplicate the methods of recording and derive at the conclusion. My question is how reliable is the website regarding the recording info? And can the info be added to FA class articles? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luv Your Life

The article Luv Your Life has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maa Destmal Aawordaim

The article Maa Destmal Aawordaim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for the content of this article, fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it a song or single?

Suspect article

Ass on the Floor

  • The track was released through Swizz Beatz' Monster Mondays (for anyone who doesn't know its a free download available every monday).
  • It is included on Diddy-Dirty Money's album, Last Train to Paris.
  • MTV Newsroom and Spin Magazine refer to the song as a single.

Now the question is... are we counting Monster Mondays as a release? Certainly the song is being treated like a single (its been performed twice, its video premiered a day before the album thus pushed its downloads from the album up). It also charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop songs chart. Granted it doesn't have a radio date or seperate digital download listing, as of yet, is it not similar to The Silence (Alexandra Burke song) which was promoted as a single but never received a separate listing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of More or Less (song)

The article More or Less (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally don't meet WP:N, no references, no mention of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ihr Kinderlein kommet.

[I am not German speaker.] The writer should copy the lyrics from German Wikipedia version. There is something wrong with "Den reinliche Windeln... G. Blaine (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Good Lookin' Out

The article Good Lookin' Out has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Claims to be "second single" but then "The single was only a promotional single". I've found no indication of it having charted (outside of unreferenced claim of 64 at our own Mila J article). I've searched at Billboard and AllMusic with no success (artist has listings, but song never did anything). Maybe something happened in China or Japan, but I've found no refs, so it seems to be not notable and fails WP:NSONGS. Source album for this single appears to have no article itself. Artist article totally unreffed and doesn't indicate much notability for her anyway. This article unreffed for the last 4 years. Time to pull the plug.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress: automatic certification citation - feedback request

I started a discussion about a template for automatic certification citation here. This is relevant to this project just as much, so feedback (on the other location) is much appreciated. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The lyrics to California, Here I Come

Hi. I've been searching on the internet for the lyrics to the song California, Here I Come and some have bloom in the sun and some have bloom in the spring. So I went to Wikipedia and searched the song and it says who wrote the song and a pretty good history of it but it does not have the lyrics. Does anyone know how to see the lyrics for songs on Wikipedia or which version of this song is the original one? Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.254.86 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We cannot post the lyrics because doing so would be a violation of copyright. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A section that says songs with lyrics by Buddy DeSylva

Hi,

There's a section at the bottom of the California, Here I Come page that says songs with lyrics by Buddy DeSylva. I went on to it and some songs have the lyrics and some don't.

Chris PS I don't know how to continue back on with a certain subject when it comes to posting comments. Can someone tell me how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.254.86 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of clicking the "New section" tab at the top, go to the section you're interested in and click on the "[edit]" link to the right of the section heading. You'll get an edit window with just that section's comments in it. Probably you'll want to add your new text to the bottom, so position your cursor (maybe add a new line) and start typing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
And to answer your question, without looking at the articles themselves, lyrics can be quoted within the analytical framework under fair use, or the copyright may have expired if the work was created and first published before January 1, 1923 and the last surviving author died before January 1 1941. As Buddy DeSylva died on July 11, 1950, the only way lyrics could be quoted is under fair use. Other than that, lyrics should be removed. I suggest you read WP:LYRICS if you want to know more. --Muhandes (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've been on a few websites already with the lyrics to California, Here I Come but some have bloom in the sun and some have bloom in the spring. I wasw hoping like the websites that I was on that Wikipedia would also have the lyrics but to the original version. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.254.86 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A step in the right direction would be reading the text just above your question. --Muhandes (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheet music

Opinions would be appreciated at a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Using sheet music sources. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of My Sweet Darlin

The article My Sweet Darlin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Single date?

Does the release of a single (date) go by date of available purchase or release to radio? Dan56 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If both are available then per WP:SONGS, the purchase date is the actual release date. Sending songs to radio does not count as a single release, unless we're talking about a US release. In the US many singles are released only to radio stations because the US is the main airplay market in the world. It is here that airplay counts the most towards chart performance. So to clarify if both radio and purchase dates are available the purchase date prevails, otherwise the airplay date is acceptable as a release date for US-only singles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

He was referring to Back to December which in no way or shape or form is like Ego (Beyoncé Knowles song)'s release. Thanks for replying Unique, this seems to be a bit of a problem on the article. ℥nding·start 12:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep the Home Fires Burning

I am researching the origins of a world war 1 memento. It is a table linnin with united kingdo flag bordering scenes from ww1 and a era livingroom of a family around a piano singing this song. also of the sheet music and lyrics. It may have been a promotional item for tea or flower. Any leads from out there will be appreciated. deweybikeman@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.112 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Producer of original "Stay" by Maurice Williams

friendly fyi from well-meaning non-music expert.

I feel this is important addition to the article found at: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stay_%28Maurice_Williams_song%29

I did not add this credit without permission. However, I saw an original copy of "Stay" – and it was produced by Jan Tillman Hutchens (Who later became investigative news reporter WJBF-TV Augusta, GA).

That credit is not posted on story I feel it is important addition.

If someone has one of the original 45s – it includes credit – and I saw it (really - smile).

Questions call Greg Peterson 1-906-401-0109 wiki username: yoopernewsman I really would love a copy of the original 45 rpm single — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoopernewsman (talk • contribs) 03:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Tried to delete previous versions of my message - sorry for all the mistakes - first time I have left this type info - I'll shut up now - smile. -Yoopernewsman-Yoopernewsman (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The right place to post this would be at the talk page of the relevant article, Stay (Maurice Williams song), which you already did. There is no need to duplicate it here; if someone is looking after the article they will respond. Also please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to buy or sell stuff. – IbLeo(talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Suga Mama for deletion

The article Suga Mama is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga Mama (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

However, that song can't be deleted anymore. '| () () `'/ I> (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_6&oldid=1259733716"