Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Discussion of interest

Please see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico Airplay ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Chronology" for infoboxes of promotional singles

There doesn't seem to be set precedent on whether chronologies should be added to infoboxes of promotional singles. Looking at articles for Ariana Grande and Taylor Swift's promotional singles, they seem to have this. I have personally never added them to articles for Meghan Trainor's promotional singles, because the releases usually feel disconnected from each other, and don't generally constitute an era like commercial singles do. So it seems pointless. What do you guys think?--N Ø 07:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Some articles that have it:
Call It What You Want (Taylor Swift song) Only the Young (Taylor Swift song) Welcome to New York (song) Call It What You Want (Taylor Swift song) The Archer (song) You're Not Sorry Crazier (Taylor Swift song)

Don't include, not all albums have promo singles and it becomes confusing when promo singles crossover different albums. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't include With all the problems associated with promo singles, we should not be compounding them with chronos. Many of those linked in NO's examples are redirects to albums, which are not useful and should not be in infoboxes. If what precedes & follows is important, they should be mentioned and referenced in the prose; otherwise there are links in the navbox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't include in addition to the above, promotional singles sometimes become full-fledged singles, which would render such chronology moot. In fact, I would recommend getting rid of single chronology within infoboxes as well when what gets released right after and right before a certain song doesn't tend to be relevant to that track, and such detail is better for article prose anyway even in cases where those details are relevant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with SNUGGUMS second point: remove chronos and track listings. I'd support an effort to see this happen; I tried a while back (track listings, chronolgies), maybe it's time to try again. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Don’t include - my main objection is similar to what Snuggums said above - Promo singles often end up being regular singles later on in an album cycle, which I feel would lead to some confusing scenarios. I don’t support removing the regular single ones outright though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Genre discussion on song

We are discussing whether or not a genre should be interpreted on the article for a Kanye West song. If anyone could jump in to discuss, that would be great. The discussion is here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Songs by key categories

Only the other day I discovered Category:Songs by key.

The subcategory pages contain this text:

All songs with lyrics, composed in or popularly sung in the key of [key].

There are a few issues with this:

Clearly it's nowhere near all songs in each key at the moment. Of course, the categories may be still in an early stage of development, but it would be wishful thinking to be able to list every song ever composed.
How is "popularly sung" defined? Furthermore, this descriptive text is at odds with the category names (Songs composed in [key]). Are we meant to list only songs that were originally composed in the given key, or generally songs that are "popularly sung" in the given key, whatever that means?

Furthermore, what about songs that don't fit neatly into one of the key categories? I think we need to decide how we should fit these into the system. Cases to consider:

Songs in a mixture of keys: There are many common ways in which songs change or mix keys. Do we have a category specifically for songs in multiple keys, or do we list each such song in the corresponding category for each key it is partially in? Furthermore, do we need to consider separating out the different ways in which songs can mix keys?
Songs that are ambiguous as to what key they're in: I have observed that with some songs it's confusing to try to work out the key, even if I can figure out all the notes. With some, there's a clear key signature but it's hard to single out the major tonic, the minor tonic or any other as being the tonal centre. With others, there may be so many accidentals it's hard to identify a key. I suppose it's difficult to accommodate such songs unless we can find a source giving a musical analysis confirming a song as being in a particular key.
Songs not in a major or minor key: Many songs use Gregorian modes. These include traditional folk songs and modern pop. I suppose a category for each of these would work (Category:Songs in the Dorian mode, Category:Songs in the Mixolydian mode, etc.), and we can create these categories as we begin to populate them. Trouble is there seems to be dispute about whether these mode names should be capitalised. I can imagine that post-tonal systems have been used for vocal music as well, though I don't know of any examples.

And I notice that right now there's Category:Songs composed in D-flat minor but no Category:Songs composed in C-sharp minor or Category:Songs composed in D-sharp minor, and moreover no other categories for keys with more than six sharps or flats.

Another issue is that some of the songs listed in these categories don't mention the key in the article text, and as such the claim of key is unsourced. I think that, if a song is to be included in one of these categories, it needs to have the key stated in the article text, with reliable sources (and not, for instance, blindly copying the key labelling from Musicnotes or the like). — Smjg (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I may come back to this, but in the meantime, here is an earlier failed nomination regarding compositions by key. If I see any unreferenced cats, I remove under WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF, this has included Songs by key cats. I do agree, in the absolute minimum, that the scheme needs alot more thought to be of any value to anybody. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely recall seeing some more-recent discussion. It does require WP:CATV at a minimum. (I think I could be persuaded there are almost no songs which can be included in a category and be defined by that category. Maybe some classical pieces [but of course those more-often switch keys].) --Izno (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat loosening the restrictions of SONGCOVER

The instructions at WP:SONGCOVER / WP:COVERSONG tell us that "a particular artist's rendition should be included... only if at least one of the following applies:

the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song,
the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

In practice, I've been allowing a few other things into articles, while holding to the spirit of a high bar to inclusion. The things I have been including:

the rendition is used in a major film
the rendition includes an original musician from a notable version
the rendition is praised or criticized by an original musician from a notable version
the rendition has a high number (a million?) of views online
the rendition has been discussed in significant depth by multiple third-party sources.

Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of these would be sourced without ultimately resorting to a citation from a reliable source, which is what the guideline states anyway. The definition of "major" film is subjective, and the only way of sourcing its inclusion would be liner notes (not independent), Discogs or iMDb (both non-RS), or a reliable source. Any inclusion or criticism by an original musician would probably be mentioned in a reliable source, and YouTube views would involve setting an arbitrary number. So it seems we're back to "discussed by a reliable source". Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that those examples are covered under "discussed by a reliable source", but I'd welcome some elaboration to accompany the very brief statement at WP:SONGCOVER. In cases where one of the original artists – especially when they're also the writer – plays on a cover version or comments on another artist's recording, that's definitely worthy of inclusion. (And I'm relieved to see it mentioned here, having been flummoxed at times by how some editors interpret the guideline.)

I think there's a danger that editors zero in on a section discussing covers and, while quite rightly removing many items, they miss how the section works with the rest of the article. For example, the article might state early on that the songwriter always intended the song to be in a certain style or pictured it sung by a certain performer; a particular cover version might achieve this. Or we might have said that the original artist/writer performed it in concert or on TV with another notable artist; then years later, that same guest artist records a cover as a tribute to the writer. If one's focused only on a section titled Cover versions, though, it's too easy to miss the significance of these renditions. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If covered by a reliable source then the mention of the rendition is valid. If no such source exists then that cover simply doesn’t belong. If the writer plays on a cover then you might expect coverage in the press etc. There has to be some context shown as to why that cover is noteworthy otherwise the article gets littered with a long and random list of "sang it at a concert or on TV" or "released it on an album" with nothing to say why we should care.--Egghead06 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course – no one's saying otherwise. The point I'm making is that the full context might not be apparent unless one reads the entire article. And editors on WP:SONGCOVER patrol often don't do that, from what I see. Article writers, and reviewers, do, and the issue is one of relevance and location of information as much as it is WP:SONGCOVER. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like everybody is reading "discussed by a reliable source" when it really says "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song". It's not very common to find a source focusing on a song and its various versions. I have only run into such sources a half dozen times, allowing me to cite the source and list some artists who have covered the song. Which is why I proposed a loosening. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of the five instances mentioned I would have no issue with four of them being used to mention a rendition, with a reliable source. I’m uneasy about number of views online. Who decides how many and isn’t there a large element of user generation to views on a website?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The current wording is too restrictive, but a reliable source that discusses the rendition should still be required. As a practical matter, most RS about songs are artist bios, album reviews, genre/history-type reference works, etc. – usually, they are not "on the subject of the song". Whether to include appearances in major films, as well as other uses in T.V., advertising, sporting events, etc., should still be governed by WP:SONGTRIVIA. In fact, similar wording should be added to SONGCOVER: Only renditions that have gained their own critical attention, as discussed in reliable sources, should be added to song articles. This does not include renditions that are merely listed or mentioned in passing; they must be recognized as somehow noteworthy in their own right. Any rendition that includes an original musician, has a lot of online views, etc., is not in itself indicative of a rendition's importance, but needs to be confirmed by a RS. Lists of cover songs are increasingly easy to find on the internet and WP articles should be providing more encyclopedic content. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a sensible proposal. Good wording. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that as well. That's kind of what I was thinking as well, but I didn't get my point across as clearly as Ojorojo, obviously. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I also agree the current wording is too restrictive. I think some of the suggestions proposed here are good.
- I'm fine with the first suggestion, though I understand "major film" is subjective, but we can use editorial discussion here. I would also suggest adding covers that appear on television shows too.
- I think this one is too much of a stretch, but maybe there could be an allowance for a cover version by an original band member.
- The third suggestion is OK, but I believe this is already covered by the existing rules.
- I oppose using video views, because any threshold we set would be arbitrary. Maybe we could allow coverage based on a cover's appearance on a notable sales chart, however.
- I believe this would already be allowed by the existing rules too.

-- Calidum 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This suggestion goes against what we've been doing. We may have different ideas in mind. I'm not fine with "major film" because its use in the film may be incidental and so it may not be recognized. It should be either the film's theme song, used to market the film or is a plot point in the film, otherwise, it's trivia. The next two "notable version" points use coded Wikilawyering words. To me "notable version" means it could stand on its own but to new editors, it could mean a lot of things. It needs to be clarified. Online views is fraught with problems of its own and is likely easy to quantify but change over time. If there's a subject value for views, we should link to that. The last is the only subjective entry. We have to have a criteria that would work to keep White Christmas (song) or even all of the parodies of The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) short while not restricting entries in a song like Somebody That I Used to Know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Used to market a film" seems a very low bar. There a many songs that are chucked in a trailer without ever appearing in the film, let alone get comments from independent source. Otherwise, I agree. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet: Uses of songs in film was discussed last year, which resulted in WP:SONGTRIVIA. Are you suggesting that this not apply to cover songs? It would be inconsistent to have a different (lower) standard for covers than the originals. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Like one or two others here, the only area I'm slightly iffy about is the one concerning online views. I suppose if a reliable source deems a cover version's online views to be in some way remarkable, that should be sufficient.

I repeat, though, I think we should consider that a particular cover's significance might not necessarily be made apparent in the article's Cover versions section. For instance, Artist A might be mentioned as the song's inspiration; the original recording might have been made with an obvious and deliberate nod to Artist A's influence; reviewers might have said the song would be perfect for Artist A to cover ... Once a reader arrives at Cover versions, a simple statement that Artist A covered the song a year or two after its original release makes perfect sense. A reliable source discussing the song will comment on this as a significant cover, in my experience, but in terms of presenting information in a Wikipedia article, it's usually redundant to simply repeat the reasons why under Cover versions. JG66 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

It's been over ten days and there is no support for retaining the "on the subject of the song" limitation. Propose to remove this from the current WP:SONGCOVER and slightly re-order the presentation (old wording ~~struck~~, new colored):

Cover versions/multiple renditions
Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy. Cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list. When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

the rendition is discussed by a reliable source ~~on the subject of the song~~, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.

the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
For lists of recordings by date, use an instance of {{Timeline-event}} for each entry; see WP:DATELIST.

If there are no objections, I'll add this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change, but I don't really think it changes much of our current guidance. It certainly doesn't go as far as the initial proposal did. Calidum 15:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposal too. I do question the continued use of the words 'or list' which is (or was) not in the spirit of WP guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that it is too restrictive, or perhaps others' interpretation of the guideline is too restrictive. If I remember correctly, that hasn't always been the case, and it has gotten stricter over time. This is in regards to the edit conflict over including a cover of The Changeling (The Doors song) by David Gogo, which has received attention on the Allmusic page as well as this Dutch magazine, so I'd say it meets the letter of the law in any event. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic, but that appears to be exactly why the guidelines exist: to stop the inclusion of something barely mentioned in passing. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the problem. It isn't merely a list entry like a track listing. The cover itself has received attention. Why shouldn't we include a brief mention? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It hasn't received specific attention though – both are passing mentions of the song: AllMusic says "underappreciated" and the Dutch magazine just says the album "includes a cover of the Doors song", neither of them discuss the song in-depth at all. Those are exactly the sort of trivial mentions this guideline is trying to avoid. Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For example, would there be a Beatles song that wouldn't have a hundred cover versions that met that level of inclusion? Articles just become a sludge-pit of everyone wanting to mention their favourite band released this song also. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is off-topic – EDDY's point that "perhaps others' interpretation of the guideline is too restrictive" is precisely what I've been talking about. I've mentioned the situation where, when it comes to an article's Cover versions section, so much has been mentioned already about another artist's influence on the original song that all that is needed about the same artist's subsequent cover is the bald fact that they did release a recording. To give any more is redundant and straight repetition, because the significance is given in earlier sections. I've also seen situations where editors have removed mention of a song's use in feature films, citing SONGCOVER, when the source is an article about the song's use in several well-known feature films ...

And there's a difference between a) including discussion of a cover version and b) making a statement that a song has also been covered by a particular artist or many artists. To discuss another recording, we adhere to SONGCOVER. To state that some other artists have covered it – without any reference to parent albums, release dates, producers or other details – and ideally using a source that discusses the song, is simply ensuring we include a sufficiently notable point in an encyclopedic article dedicated to the song. It's as worthy of inclusion as saying, without any elaboration whatsoever, that the original recording was subsequently included on a multi-artist compilation album or was adopted as a theme song for a social or political campaign. The problem I've seen for years regarding this issue is that some editors who eagerly police SONGCOVER appear to have no idea about writing articles and giving thorough coverage to the subject (the latter being a requirement of GA, certainly FA). Either that or they're zeroing in on SONGCOVER and being way too blinkered.

As it happens, I agree that coverage of the Dave Gogo cover appears to be insufficient for inclusion in the Doors song article. But I still think, since the discussion here is about loosening the restrictions of SONGCOVER, the overall issue is as much about some editors' overly rigid interpretation of the guideline as it's stood for years. The wording at SONGCOVER should stipulate that the guideline concerns what I've called scenario a) – discussion of a particular cover version. Personally, I've never read it as meaning anything else, anyway. JG66 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Cover songs are sometimes mentioned in album reviews (especially when there are many or the album is mostly covers), artist bios, etc. However, these often just receive passing mentions and may be less than a full sentence. Just because there is a source that, for example, the Beatles performed a "rousing" version of an Everly Brothers song in Hamburg, doesn't justify adding it the song article. This is hardly better than using a track listing as a source.

Perhaps this point can be clarified similar to WP:SONGTRIVIA: "The use of a song is only worthy of noting in its respective article when it: ... is not merely listed or mentioned in passing; e.g. a movie review in a quality source simply lists the songs in the movie, without discussing the importance or merits of the songs' use".

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me in the examples you give, you're trying to draw a line that's not there. You say a band performing a "rousing" cover of a song is no more worthy than its basic inclusion in a track listing – well, that's rubbish, the first example's a qualitative judgment, the second's a bare, unadorned fact. And it doesn't carry through to the SONGTRIVIA wording. There, "merely listed or mentioned in passing" is elaborated on with the phrase "without discussing the importance or merits of the songs' use". "Rousing" is pretty weak and unremarkable, yes, but it's still a comment on the merits of the cover version. It's not as if SONGTRIVIA reads "without engaging in extended discussion about the importance or merits of the songs' use". JG66 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of editors desperately trying to put unremarkable covers in articles about songs, they could create something like this where any cover, referenced or not can get a mention?!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that aimed at me, Digghead? I'm not talking about including any unremarkable cover versions, I'm saying that the two threads don't match, and that any judgment of a cover's merits is worthy of inclusion under SONGCOVER. And the overall point I've been trying to make all along here is that anything related to cover versions has to be viewed within the context of the whole song article also. I don't expect an unimaginative editor fixated only on WP:SONGCOVER to even entertain that possibility, but with an article-wide perspective, it's often the case that the covers with only weak, innocuous commentary end up getting ditched anyway, just as any borderline detail gets culled. Point is, it's not only about SONGCOVER. JG66 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but who are you? I am not being rude or personal here, just offering another possible destination so editors can list their favourite cover in a list of covers thereby not polluting the article on the song for the rest of us. Just imagine how many entries there would be for List of Yesterday (Beatles song) cover versions.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Who am I? I'm the editor you apparently replied to with the message "Instead of editors desperately trying to put unremarkable covers ...?!!!" JG66 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn’t read it. I was merely indenting to add my point. I’ve read it now and I’m not sure what changes to SONGCOVER you would like to see. Do you have new proposed wording?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the indentation did suggest you were responding to my comment and not the previous/full-out one. I apologise for my rudeness. JG66 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you just call another editor a dickhead because they didn't agree with you?Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Er ... no. I think it's quite clear what I was responding to. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I did wonder what a Digghead was.😱--Egghead06 (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why The Music Network shouldn't be used for release dates

There's been some debate about The Music Network and whether its a reliable source for release dates in Australia. There are lots of examples where it has/hasn't been used to source release dates. I've noticed the following discrepancy: in issue 1296, it says "Slow Grenade" by Ellie Goulding was released to radio and then two weeks later it also says "Slow Grenade" in the singles to radio list in 1298. Its unlikely that a label would service songs twice in the same month. Given that rankings are next to the songs, is it not more likely that these is actually a ranking of songs added to australian radio? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable guess. In any case, I certainly don't hold it in as high regard as things like ARIA for Australia-related music matters or even Noise11 (which sometimes delves more into specifics on weekly sales/chart rankings than ARIA's main site). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

SONGCOVER clarification

An editor tried to merge content from a marginally notable version of O Holy Night into the article on the premise that "multiple notable versions of the same song should be included in the main article and not in separate articles". Another editor reverted and stated that this "does not apply to classical music and traditional songs". Talk:O Holy Night#Merge from O Holy Night (Ladywell Primary School song). I'm on the side of merging it in as has been done with other carols. Is there any guidance or MoS on this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal of interest

Members of this WikiProject and anybody who works on music-related articles might be interested in a proposal I've started. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Grease (song), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Israel Media Forest chart

I am trying to find an archive that displays the peak position for "Love Lockdown" but can't do so currently; I even changed the chart issue and tried out this URL, but it just says loading... can someone help me please? --K. Peake 16:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

New Billboard Global charts

Just in case editors are unaware of these new charts, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#New Billboard charts about whether they should be included in chart tables in song articles or not. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Rose of Cimmaron

Was the Rusty Young song (Poco) entitled Rose of Cimmaron named after the New Mexico town of Cimmaron. I know Rusty is from Colorado and has family in New Mexico. What a beautiful song!! Steve Anderson Young 173.94.43.189 (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh??? What even is that? Doggy54321 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to ask this question, but according to a little research I just did, it doesn't look like Rose Dunn, the "Rose of Cimarron", was ever in New Mexico. The Cimarron River runs through Oklahoma where she lived, and I suspect the name came from that.Brianyoumans (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of charts-related lists in "See also" sections

I'd like to see if we can reach a consensus on whether to include lists relating to chart-toppers in a song article's "See also" section, often multiple examples. I'm referring to sublists (by year and/or decade) within List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1960s, List of Billboard number-one singles, List of number-one singles in Australia during the 1960s, etc.

MOS:SEEALSO states:

One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article.

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

As I see it, the chart lists are not "related to the subject of the article"; they're merely incidental rather than informative, and therefore not in keeping with the above criteria for inclusion at all. Typically, the target lists simply include the song in the chronological order of number-one hits for that year – the only new information for readers is the precise dates for the weekly charts and the chart-topping songs either side of it in the chronology (eg, List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 1978). I get the impression this approach increased after the decision was made to deprecate the many foot-of-page succession boxes containing chart-topping spans, but I could be wrong.

Hey Jude#See also is the example that springs to mind. (Full transparency: Back in April, I removed the lists from that song article's See also section as part of ongoing improvements to what long ago passed as an FA, and also, from memory, after seeing editors remove these lists at other articles. I received a thanks notification from one editor; a little while later, another editor reverted my edit, citing the deprecation of the chart succession boxes as a reason for inclusion. Pinging the relevant editors now: DariuZzandor, Synthwave.94.)

I'm sure there are far more excessive examples than that 1968 song, because there are so many more countries with national charts in the 21st century. As far as what does warrant inclusion at Hey Jude#See also, I'd say readers might expect a few songs that sources recognise as examples of the composer continuing or revisiting the (piano ballad) style; an article or two on the political climate in Europe and the US, given that "Hey Jude" especially resonated amid events like the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia and the 1968 Democratic National Convention; or examples of songs that followed in the tradition of long, drawn-out, "anthemic" fadeouts. Those examples do at least fall under "tangentially related topics" and "reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", because they follow on from points referred to in the song article, or should do.

All thoughts welcome, and I'll post notification at a few other projects. If nothing else, and it goes for albums as well as songs, it's apparent that many articles do not include such lists – I've worked extensively on Beatles song and album articles for years, and I believe just one or two articles have this type of list-packed "See also" section – yet it's not as if the lists are any less relevant (if they're relevant at all) to the articles that omit them. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am a minimalist when it comes to "see also", keeping in mind that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable" (WP:V). Putting something in see also does imply a connection, and if it's not immediately obvious, then it should be citable. So Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia should not be in the see also of "Hey Jude" unless you can find a source stating there is a connection between the two. Also, if it is due for inclusion in the article, it should be linked in the article, and not in the see also (MOS:NOTSEEALSO: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."). If it is not due weight for a mention in an article, especially a WP:FA or WP:GA article, then putting it in see also is likely undue weight. For these reasons, FAs should only have see also in exceptional cases. (t · c) buidhe 12:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe: Right, I was only giving some possible examples of topics that are relevant to the song. (As I said, those potential "See also" links would at least work with "points referred to in the song article, or should do" – reliable sources do recognise a connection between "Hey Jude" and events in Czechoslovakia, as it happens; the song became an anthem for the Czech people, apparently.) And yes, anything in "See also" needs to conform with what's outlined at MOS:NOTSEEALSO; and topics do not need to appear there at all if they're linked in the main text; and no, I'm not making a case here for including the Warsaw Pact invasion, piano ballads, songs with anthemic fadeouts, etc, at Hey Jude#See also ...
But this discussion is about trying to gain consensus regarding the inclusion of lists of chart-topping songs under See also. Perhaps I was confusing the issue; I was just making the point that there are some genuine "tangentially related topics", whereas I don't consider that lists of chart-toppers, where the only point of relevance is that the song title appears in each list, fits that criterion. Do you have an opinion on this issue regarding the lists? JG66 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

JG66, I think that FA articles should not usually have see also sections. If the charts are not due weight enough to mention (and link) in the body, they should be dropped as insufficiently relevant/due. (t · c) buidhe 12:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe: Thanks, and I agree that FAs (any article, actually) should use these sections very sparingly, if at all. The sales charts are often mentioned in the body and are linked in the charts table towards the end of song and album articles. (For example, at "Hey Jude" again: Hey Jude#Charts.) It's the lists of number-one songs on each chart (usually by year) that I'm querying – ie, when the only overlap with the subject of the article is the song/album's mere appearance in a list. It's a pretty tenuous connection in terms of "See also" for "tangentially related topics" is what I'm saying. JG66 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Just curious: to what policies or guidelines do you refer when you say: (1) "Putting something in see also does imply a connection, and if it's not immediately obvious, then it should be citable" (as opposed to "should be briefly explained") and (2) "FAs should only have see also in exceptional cases"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(I saw the notification to here at WT:MOSLAYOUT) One idea is to incorporate the links into the body. I randomly pulled a No. 1 from one of those sublists, Try Again (Aaliyah song), and I saw that it has a charting table. Perhaps adding a relevant link to the "1" in the "Peak position" column could work, if it's not deemed too MOS:EGGy.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba: yes, I can see that as an option – but perhaps also an issue with regard to MOS:EGG. Problem is, usually chart templates are used in the charts table, so one can't link from the "1" at all (the numeral is generated via the template code). It's not always the case. With older songs, one often needs to type the chart details manually, because each chart was in its infancy and almost none of them were the official, fully industry-recognised listings that's suggested in the way the template renders information in the table. But again, it's whether these lists of chart number-ones even merit a place in See also's in the first place. JG66 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with JG66, however, I think these lists are definitely relevant and should be linked to within the article, in a Commercial performance or Chart performance section, for example. If the "List of number one singles..." lists are notable enough to merit an article, surely any songs mentioned within the article should link to it in their respective pages. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Single covers of NSYNC songs and one Clash song still at FFD

The single covers of NSYNC songs "Tearin' Up My Heart", "I Want You Back (NSYNC song)", and "It's Gonna Be Me" have been listed and relisted for discussion for months. For further input, you are invited to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 25#NSYNC single covers.

Not only those, single covers of one song by the Clash "Should I Stay or Should I Go" have also been listed and relisted for discussion for months. The current location of the discussion is Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 11#Should I Stay or Should I Go single covers. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Music Notes Reliability As A Source

There needs to be a conversation about how Wikipedia uses Music Notes arrangements as a source for the vocal range of songs. There are errors all throughout Wikipedia of songs incorrectly listing the vocal ranges of songs with male singers as being an octave higher than they actually are due to using what is written in the Music Notes vocal range description. The issue here is that Music Notes does not actually give the vocal range of the songs, but rather gives the vocal range of their arrangement of the song which is an important distinction. This is described by Music Notes themselves in these sources as well as under the arrangement details tab of each song. https://help.musicnotes.com/hc/en-us/articles/201793243-What-does-Voice-range-on-a-product-page-mean- https://help.musicnotes.com/hc/en-us/articles/201372663-Why-isn-t-the-music-I-printed-just-like-the-recording- https://help.musicnotes.com/hc/en-us/articles/201157917-Why-isn-t-the-Original-Published-Key-stated-on-your-site-always-the-same-key-the-song-was-recorded-in-

Music Notes notates every vocal melody as being in the treble clef regardless of whether it is in a male or female vocal register. They also do not always distinguish between a change in vocalists in duets, which results in an octave change in the song not being reflected by the sheet music provided by Music Notes. Because of these things there are a large number of songs that place the male vocal range as being an octave higher than it is, often resulting in ranges far above the capabilities of the singer. This has led to a large amount of confusion from singers as to why the range given in Wikipedia is so high above their capabilities even though the song itself is an octave lower. Here is another source from Music Notes that provides more info on vocal range which would let you know that many Wikipedia articles detailing the vocal range of male vocalists in songs are off by an octave and does not fit with what Music Notes itself describes as the male voice types and corresponding vocal ranges. https://www.musicnotes.com/now/tips/determine-vocal-range/ There have been attempts I have made to correct these octave mistakes on various song articles, but because Wikipedia users incorrectly defer to the Music Notes arrangement's vocal range these changes are quickly undone. There needs to be a change in how we use Music Notes in this regard so that we are able to correct this misinformation.

FYI it has been discussed a number of times before at the reliable sources noticeboard - here and here. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

So is the response to then knowingly write incorrect information in Wikipedia articles just because we are misusing a source to pretend it is saying something that it isn't? All of the Wikipedia articles that I linked indicate that they are representing the singer's vocal range which is determinably false, as they are merely representing the vocal range of the Music Notes arrangement.

There also is not uniformity across Wikipedia as many articles correctly label the range of the singers even though it is different from the linked Music Notes arrangement, whereas all of the links I gave incorrectly label the range of the singers. Chukulem (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If the current policies on the matter require us to knowingly spread false information then shouldn't that be an indicator that the policies be revised Chukulem (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If you believe a source is incorrect, you are the one that has to search for a consensus to list it at WP:RSP. In this case practically you are saying that you prefer to have deleted all technical information backed up by Musicnotes (including but not limited to bpms, musical scales and vocal ranges) just because one clarified issue. If that's the case, WP:RSN is the venue. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Or alternatively, start a discussion at a music WP:WIKIPROJECT (WT:ALBUMS is the one that gets the most responses usually) and depending on the WP:CONSENSUS, it’ll be added to the reliable source list for music or the unreliable list. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have made clear in my write-up above, I am stating that the issue that is present in every single one of those Wikipedia links I gave and many more across Wikipedia is a matter of Wikipedia incorrectly stating the vocal range. Music Notes is reliable in correctly stating the bpm and key signature, it's a matter of them changing the register of vocal melodies. Also does it really count as a clarified issue if the clarification is simply acknowledging that so many Wikipedia articles still spread false information about the vocal ranges of many singers but not amending those issues?

There are lots of articles that correctly differ from the Music Notes sources on the male vocal ranges and correctly offer up the actual vocal range of the male singer in the song, such as the song articles in the Featured Articles category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speechless_(Michael_Jackson_song)#Composition

I'm not saying we should entirely get rid of the information from Music Notes and discredit every piece of information from that source, I'm saying that there is an issue specifically with us using the vocal range information from it when it isn't intended to convey that information. It is irresponsible of us to intentionally leave up what we know to be incorrect information and to stop people from correcting those errors. Chukulem (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want? I see a lot of complaining no matter what people say to you. Don’t like the errors? WP:SOFIXIT. Want a consensus about source use? Start a discussion to come to an agreement on how to handle it. We encourage participation, but unconstructive complaining like this isn’t helping anyone. Go fix what is wrong, or start devising a plan on how to fix it if you can’t do it on your own. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You're sure coming swinging right out the gate huh? As I stated in my paragraphs above, when I made efforts to fix the errors they were undone because people said "refer to the source" except they are using the source incorrectly regarding vocal register. When I made that clear to the people who undid my corrections they recommended that I make a post about it here to make a discussion about the issue, which I have done. To which you reply "start a discussion to come to an agreement on how to handle it" which does not really provide a whole lot to the conversation. You say that I am unconstructively complaining when in reality I was prevented from solving the issues so I decided to bring it up here to make the issue known so that these corrections would be able to be made. I've brought forth an error that is quite common throughout song articles so that it can be fixed throughout the site and you say that's just complaining?

As you may be able to ascertain from my gross formatting etc I am fairly unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia and do not feel confident that I can fix this error on my own (especially since it would take an incredibly long time to correct the large number of articles that have these errors), but I still felt it worthwhile to bring up the issue so it could be corrected since I was stopped from doing so. Chukulem (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that we can't have the best of both worlds. Saying the music sheets provided by Musicnotes are reliable for one thing, but unreliable for the other thing is like saying that TMZ is reliable for celebrities' death announcements, but unreliable for any other kind of information. In any case we'd prefer another independent source. Here we can't simply say "According to the music sheet published at Musicnotes.com, the Artist's vocal range spans five notes, from a low of D♭4 to a high of B♭5, however, it is actually an octave lower." According to the [here] we accepted to use Musicnotes.com as long as a) We use the phrase "According to the music sheet provided by X and published at Musicnotes.com" and b) that we never linked the website (because we are citing the music sheet, not the website itself), something editors at this point are unaware of. The problem is not Musicnotes.com, the problem is any of these companies publishing a deliberately incorrect vocal range. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe that Hannah Montana lied to me after all these years :( Yeah I saw that being the conclusion reached in the discussion on the matter from a decade ago, but the issue is that the majority of the articles I linked use phrasing such as "The singer's range in this song is ---" which is different from saying that's the range of the music sheet.

Also I think it is worth noting that the discussion which reached its conclusion was regarding the credibility of Music Notes in a general sort of way but didn't actually have any issue with the content that it was providing and they all agreed the information offered from Music Notes was correct, the issue was whether it was reliable enough to speak to the recorded version of the song. They didn't actually have any specific grievances with any of the information itself from Music Notes. What I'm pointing out is a bit of a different matter since it is evidence of demonstrably incorrect information that we are using rather than being correct information that comes from a source we aren't entirely confident in. I can understand the compromise that was made of labeling the music "according to the music sheet etc" however I don't think it's necessarily a great solution if we are aware the sheet music differs from the recorded song. When people look at a song article on Wikipedia they aren't looking for information on the sheet music of it, they are looking for information about the recorded song itself. Definitely a tricky situation to solve though.

Also slightly tangential but it's worth noting that the sources aren't completely incorrect in their notation of the melody, as treble clef is often used to notate male melody lines and guitar as well with the expectation that the performer understands it is to be performed an octave lower. Notating it an octave above happens occasionally and is accepted, it's that Music Notes then works off of that notation and lists the range as being what is notated rather than what is expected to be performed. It's a fairly dumb and confusing practice (especially since there are other clefs that outright indicate it is to be performed an octave lower) that is what has resulted in the messy situation we're in now.Chukulem (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Brazilian certifications

Just pointing out a discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Brazilian_certifications. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerning WP:SONGCOVER

Per WP:BRD, I notice that WP:SONGCOVER has undergone feature creep over the last year. This has resulted in it being in conflict with itself and, more longstandingly, notability as specified by WP:NNC. I believe that this requires further discussion. @Egghead06: as the person who has reverted the two most significant of my edits that describe the problem ([1] [2]), and you're welcome to bring the problem to the attention of other editors. EP111 (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion and agreement for the change can be found at Songcover amendment. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Thanks for the pointer, I'll read it all later. I'm still not convinced it'll be in harmony with other guidelines, though. EP111 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re: music video credits

See Talk:Levitating (song) and the back and forth in the article history re: music video credits. Project member feedback welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Music Network (again)

Hello. I am a bit confused on The Music Network and where it should and shouldn’t be used. There was no consensus created last time a discussion was opened here. I have had different people tell me that TMN is and isn’t reliable. Could someone clarify for me, and can we also gather a consensus so that we can implement this in other articles? Thanks. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Album edition in infobox

Should an album's edition be included in the infobox? I see many articles where the song only appears on a certain edition of the album where it just states that album name (such as New Romantics (song)) but many also including the edition of the album the song is included on in brackets next to it (such as Ours (song)). Right now I am working on Levitating (song) and a remix of it, also released as a single, was added to three editions of its parent album and it looks kind of messy in the infobox. Should I include all its respective editions or just the album name? LOVI 33 02:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Include the most notable edition/the most broad edition. "New Romantics" was released as a deluxe track, so the album should be 1989 (Deluxe edition). If it was released as a standard edition track, it wouldn’t need the deluxe as it’s already assumed. "Ours" should be the same, but the album name is Speak Now (Deluxe edition). For the "Levitating" remixes, include the one that is the most prominent. French CDs aren’t gonna be relevant to people outside of France, so that can be removed. "Digital" can be expanded to "digital bonus track", which is a more disambiguated version of "bonus", so in this case "Bonus" should be used because it’s the most ambiguous and broad version of the three. Hope this helps! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@LOVI33: pinging LOVI33. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Doggy54321 thanks so much! LOVI 33 02:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Swedish certifications since 2018

Hello, as Swedish single certifications assigned starting January 1st 2018 are calculated only with streaming, should I/we somoehow note it (seperate Streaming section in table, or use 'note' parameter when adding the cert itself) as Streaming?
Would appreciate your thoughts. Kleool (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kleool: this might be better discussed at Template talk:Certification Table Entry. I don't know if this could be done automatically in the template code, i.e. any "certyear" entry from 2018 onwards automatically adds the streaming double dagger to the entry in the table, and to the footnotes at the bottom of the table. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: template already does that (what you mentioned). so my question is not about what template does, but what we, as editors, do stylistically? (because double dagger (or any symbol) can give false impression about cert when it's not the regular sps/sales variant).

E.g. when Denmark had streaming certifications, i have seen both styles being used - noting that it's a streaming cert via note parameter (which is added in Italics under the country name) or having a seperate part of table for that, like in Boy with Luv for Jpn and S.Korea. So i thought i'd ask if other editors had a somewhat idea/consensus/style guidelines about these kinds of certifications Kleool (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I would think that streaming accounts for the vast majority of certified units these days, so it probably isn't that important to note whether a certification is based on 100% streaming or 90% streaming 10% downloads, for example. I can't see any reason why the certification table in the "Boy with Luv" example needs to be split into two parts, and in any case, the footnotes are wrong – it's showing them as "certification based on shipments/sales" which of course is not true for a streaming certification. Richard3120 (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: to be honest, none of the 3 footnote options would be correct, sales streaming implies there are/can be sales. And shipment notation has been used for streaming certs since Denmark certs in 2010/2011. As for why i think a streamng certification should be noted - because streaming certification is what it's said to be - x count of streams, whereas non-streaming certifications (even if they make up 90% or 99% streaming) are calculated to units based on each countries stream to sales ratio. If we don't note that the certification is streaming only, regular user would assume 4 million units in Sweden, not 4 million streams. Also, countries which currently have streaming certification (japan, south korea, even Denmark pre-sps era) have seperate certifications for downloads and streaming. Speaking of table divisions - they have been used for various purposes, like seperating Streaming, or Mastertone's etc other 'non-tradition' certifications (probably because there is no standartised/aggreed upon way how we'd show these 'other' certs). Kleool (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kleool: yes, I see what you mean. I guess the easiest way is to ask for another footnote to differentiate from the current three options. Richard3120 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Is "scat" a music genre?

Over at Talk:Lift Yourself, I've asked whether or not "scat" is considered a music genre (or rather a technique). Feedback welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

NZ Hot 40 Singles Chart peaks

Hi all. Just wondering if anyone would be interested and willing to update the NZ Hot 40 Singles Chart peaks on a weekly basis. I would do it myself, but I struggle to find the time to edit these days alongside my various other commitments.

The chart can be found here, and past issues can be found by accessing the drop-down calendar menu. Peaks from the last 6 months or so on this chart need updating too, which I'm slowly getting around to doing, but any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Sean Stephens (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Please {{ping}} me when you reply. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Blessing"

It seems like The Blessing (song) has become a bit of a WP:COATRACK for non-notable covers. Would anyone like to take a quick look and prune any that should probably not be there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Australian-charts

As per this discussion, would Australian-charts.com be considered a reliable source?2603:8081:160A:BE2A:5908:73E8:2063:87AE (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes in {{Certification Table Entry}} and {{Certification Table Bottom}}

With the changes in music consumption patterns came changes in music recording certification standards, which in turn require changes in they way these certifications are listed, which is mostly through {{certification Table Entry}}. Editors who are interested in how these changes are going to be implemented are invited to contribute to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Misc denotation. --Muhandes (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Music samples still at FfD

Both File:No Limit file.ogg and File:Madonna - get together.ogg are still at WP:FFD. I welcome your inputs there. --George Ho (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry (Madonna song)

Sorry (Madonna song) was delisted as a GA in October 3, but the article still needs a quality reassessment. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Christmas Saves The Year capitalization

I recently moved the Twenty One Pilots' song "Christmas Saves The Year" to lowercase "the", and was reverted at this difference. I wanted to bring it here to see what others think. I couldn't find the part of the MOS that specifies this (not at MOS:THEMUSIC, at least) but thought I'd get other opinions on if this should be capitalized or not. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 23:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's MOS:TITLECAPS, and it shouldn't be capitalized... first bullet point under "Not capitalized". Richard3120 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Don’t capitalize per TITLECAPS. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't cap the article, and the areticle doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who capitalized the "The". Wouldn't it stay capital due to MOS:THECAPS, specifically due to "some idiomatic expressions, including the titles of artistic and academic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage."? Or if the title goes uncapitalized, perhaps it should be capitalized within the body of the page? The officially released song has a capital "The" in all the sources I can find (see [3], [4], to list some). Honestly learning experience here; consider me ignorant. Driftybiscuit (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it would not stay. if it ever ends up on AllMusic, they use the same MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Savage (song) has an RFC

Savage (song), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Charting

I know that some charts are components in others. I am not sure, however, which those are. I do know that if a chart that uses one or more components is included in a song or album then the individual components should not be used. So is the Billboard Country Airplay a component of Billboard Hot Country Songs today? Do we list this knowledge somewhere? The other part of the reason I ask is this edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

For that example, the answer is no. Billboard's genre airplay charts are determined by the amount of airplay songs receive on radio stations that primarily play songs from that genre. The airplay component of genre "hot" charts measures airplay across all radio formats broken down by songs of that specific genre. Under current rules, the highest ranked country song on the Hot 100 in a given week will be #1 on that week's Hot Country Songs chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS#Song charts, both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay could be added per consensus. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Samples and cover arts at FFD (January 2021)

The list of the following ongoing FFD discussions on cover arts of singles and samples of songs:

Yep. Plenty, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Navbox allows non-charting cover versions but page of song being covered doesn't

Lea Michele's cover of "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" was recently added and later removed from the song page's list of notable covers. It reminded me that her navbox is at the bottom of this song page, which seems like an inconsistency. She did release her version as a single in 2019, and I checked all of the Holiday 100 charts in Billboard since then just to confirm that, in fact, it hasn't actually charted. I couldn't find any restrictions about what songs are allowed in an artist's navbox, so it seems like it should be allowed to stay on the page. It seems like she's getting in through the back door, and yet I don't know of a legitimate reason to delete it since the song is listed in the navbox as one of her singles. Has anybody addressed this before? Danaphile (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Navigation templates should only include links to existing articles per WP:EXISTING. If the subject's version does not meet WP:COVERSONG it is presumptuous to even list it on the page let alone in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions about Cover Songs

I feel like the criteria for the information to include for a cover song is a bit slim. The songs guideline article establishes pretty clear guidelines as to when a cover should be mentioned in the article for the original song, but I suppose what I'm hoping is some guidance with regards to how heavily a cover should be represented in the article once it has been established that it at least meet the minimum requirements to be mentioned. I'm asking this because I have seen a few articles recently, where based upon my knowledge and understanding about the notability and success of a specific cover, the cover seemed to be given undue weight in an article.

To that effect, I guess I'm wondering how one might begin to try to determine how much a given cover should be represented in the article for the original song. Are there other existing Wikipedia standards I can reference to help me determine this?

In addition, I'm also wondering if there might be an explanation about the reason for not including a new article for a cover song? I am personally just curious about the rationale behind this. I feel as though there are cover songs which are significantly more noteworthy than the original song, and that they would fit well in an article of their own, as the level of detail that gets included in the article about the original song dwarfs the original content. I imagine I'm not the first editor to have this feelings, so I'm just hoping to get a feel for the logic behind these guidelines.

If anyone can answer some or all of this, it's much appreciated. Thanks in advance. :)ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Great question. The problem with COVERSONG is that meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. If that's the case, why would you ever include it in another article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it a problem if the content about the cover is greater than that of the original version? That's always going to be the case for a song like "Tainted Love". Also, what criteria would we use to determine that a cover version was notable enough for its own article? Richard3120 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, This is one particular article that stands out to me Doin'_Time#Lana_Del_Rey_version. Just looking at the sheer amount of content there, I just can't help but feel it should be in its own article. The is allegedly an article about a song by Sublime, but the depth to which that cover is detailed seems as though it is acting as its own article, but for some reason it's placed in a sub section because it's a cover.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. Like "Tainted Love", the cover version has become far better known and charted more widely than the original, so it's going to have more detail. The Sublime version only has two reliable sources which are the two chart placings, so it probably wouldn't qualify for its own article anyway, and would have to be included in the Lana del Rey version if it had its own article. So we're back to where we are now. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is a case where a cover has became far better known and charted more widely than the original. This is exactly why I brought it up as an example. It's in fact so successful, that I think seem to lend credence to it having its own article. Right now, we're in a situation where it basically has an article in everything but name. It's just displayed as a section in another article. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. What I do think is wrong about this article is that there is no mention of the Lana del Rey version in the lead paragraph – given that as you say it comprises the majority of the article, and is likely to be what readers are looking for when they search for this song, this is a major oversight. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I agree, I think the Del Rey cover should be mentioned in the lead, but I think that the lead of that article has very little to do with the subject at hand. I'm attempting to discuss this issue at a high level, cover songs that appear to be incredibly notable, any thoughts about the current state of that lead are probably best left for the articles talk page. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the available sourcing determines whether a cover version is given more text than the original. If the original lacks sourcing, you cannot write much about it. Of course this condition benefits recent covers because in the digital age, lots of sources can be found. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The rationale for having different versions of the same song in the same article is that they are the same song and that the history of the song should be kept together. Fans of Madonna may not wish to read the history of Don McLean's American Pie, but to hide the details would not be beneficial to readers. Plus, it remains a 1971 song written by Don McLean. Should it be in those categories more than once because it has two (or more) articles? Also we do not wish to see a return to the time when endless unreferenced 'cover versions' of songs played on a wet Wednesday in Wyoming by The Wonderously Unknown made up two thirds of the song article, anyway, there are better online sources for second hand songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet may be referring to WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It also raises the problem of WP:RECENTISM: a recent cover by a popular artist may have a flurry of mentions in the press, whereas the original or early significant covers may have predated the pop music press or be difficult to access. Articles about songs that have been around for a number of years need to take a more historical approach. This is probably not something that can be adequately addressed in SONGCOVER and needs to be taken up on a case-by-case basis. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but that doesn't apply to "Tainted Love", for example... Soft Cell's version (and probably Marilyn Manson's, too) will always be better known and have more written about it than Gloria Jones's original. There's also the problem of a cover version which passes WP:SONGCOVER but doesn't merit its own article... which article should it be included in then, the original, or the more famous cover version? Richard3120 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

In that case the Gloria Jones version is notable as the source for subsequent covers and isn't the cover... It would be strange not to mention GJ. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedic articles should be comprehensive (a requirement for FAs); some songs, like "Train Kept A-Rollin'", build on earlier renditions and a comprehensive treatment needs the historical view. Splitting them up into separate articles would lose this perspective and create a new set of problems as you brought up. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both of you, I was just suggesting potential problems that could arise as a result of each version having its own article, and why I also think that all versions should be included in the same article. I'd struggle to think of any song where you couldn't include all notable versions within the same article... even "Yesterday" manages it quite comfortably. Richard3120 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to question raised by OP (para 3 of their post). --Richhoncho (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I would just point out that I don't think every cover of a song is going have gained the amount of attention and notability where one would even begin to consider giving them their own page. Personally, I am hard pressed to think of a song that has more than one cover that would meet the criteria for having a stand alone article outside of it being a cover song. I'm sure one exists, but I just suggest this is rare. Yesterday and many songs manage the cover section quite comfortably, because they have no especially notable covers. The Yesterday article in fact, doesn't even make mention of a single cover and simply mentions it has been covered a lot. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I certainly understand and see the value in 'keeping the history of the song together'. I don't think this value is inherently lost if a cover song, which outside of being a cover, met the criteria for a stand-alone article and was given one. It seems like if we ever lived in a world where cover songs were allowed to be given their own article on Wikipedia, we would also live in a world where it's required to have it detailed in these types articles that it's cover song. I certainly agree, too, we don't want to see a return to endless unreferenced cover versions. I would just suggest that to me, the addition of unreferenced or non-notable covers seems no more or less likely to happen if cover songs that met the criteria for a stand-alone article were given one. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC for a possible alternative format for singles discography tables. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

UPFI certifications

Discussion about the usage of UPFI certifications in songs' pages was started here. You are welcome to participate. --Muhandes (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

For the Night

Can someone help me find the right source for "For the Night"? The article says it was released as a single on October 3, 2020, and shows this source to back it up [5]. Although, that link doesn't show that the song was released as a single on October 3, 2020. Can someone help me find the right one? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

When we say a song was an "international success"

If an article claims a song was an int'l success (I'm assuming in reference to how well it charted outside of its home country since the article contains no sales numbers), how many countries at minimum should it have charted in, and how high should it have ranked on those countries charts to be termed such? I came across a page recently where a song charted in only 5 foreign territories, 1 of which was a component chart entry at #99 so really I should say only 4 territories, and out of those attained #1 in two countries, #2 in another, and #10 in the last. The lead of the article however calls the song an international success and mentions it achieving #1 on a chart in the US in the same sentence, as if to indicate that this is what makes it so. To me, given the song's minimal impact internationally this is questionable/incorrect and should be reworded, but I would like a second opinion before attempting to change anything in case I am wrong. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I generally don't use that sort of terminology unless I've got a source or two saying so directly. The problem terms like "success" is that they're subjective. Charting in the top 50 in 10 countries be considered a huge breakthrough for Greta Van Fleet, a newer band in a less-than-popular-genre currently, but could be considered a massive failure for a Taylor Swift type artist who routinely top charts all over the world. In situations where all I have is various charts and no reliable source commentary, I generally just stick to the objective facts ("(Song/album) topped/charted on (x number) national charts.") Thar way, you're adhering to WP:NPOV and the reader can decide if it was a success or not. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly this... it should adhere to WP:NPOV and just state the facts... "The song peaked at number one in the US and in xxxx, and reached the top 10 in two other countries". Most songs notable enough for a Wikipedia article have probably charted in more than one country these days, so describing a song as an "international success" is a bit meaningless when the majority of them are. Is success only measured by sales and chart positions anyway? Sam Cooke's "A Change Is Gonna Come" only charted modestly in the US, but has since become widely regarded as one of the best songs of all time, not just in the USA, and hugely influential in the history of both soul music and protest music. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the only ref used in the Commercial perf section that isn't a primary chart source and it doesn't use the term "int'l success" either. I was actually already thinking of rewording it exactly the way Sergecross73 mentioned so I'll go ahead and do that. And to answer Richard3120's question, sales/chart positions are obviously not the only indicators of success. In this instance however, given the context of the statement, it doesn't seem like the editor was alluding to anything else but. And the song in question is a just over one-year old kpop song that did not/does not have remotely near the impact your example does, though the few "critics" who reviewed it considered it one of the best kpop songs of its release year. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I know, I was just using it as an obvious example of how there are different ways to define "success". In fact, as you say, it seems like the editor only uses chart performance as a measure of success, and this demonstrates exactly what Sergecross was saying... this is just the editor's personal opinion of what "success" means, and is a subjective view. Which is why we should try and avoid this type of wording in articles. Richard3120 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: didn't mean for it to come across like that. I was trying to avoid replying w 'no, sales charts are obviously not...' because ik it was a rhetorical question and I didn't want to sound obnoxious, but I guess what I wrote didn't convey my meaning well. I forget sometimes tone doesn't translate well across text. And thank you again for the feedback. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I didn't think you were being obnoxious at all, don't worry. :-) I guess my original question was rhetorical as well. Richard3120 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Russian radio release dates

Hi there! Is the 'On Air Release Date' listed by Tophit, Russia's chart provider, a reliable date for the song's radio release in Russia? Take this as an example for Inna's songs. If so, "Flashbacks" could be listed as a single on her discography page since it impacted radio there on 20.01.2021. Another example would be Lady Gaga's "911" for which the alledged impact date is 02.07.2020, thus way earlier than the September date on Italian radios listed on the respective song page. Comments are appreciated! Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Help reviewing Soon May the Wellerman Come

So this page has become popular thanks to TikTok and Nathan Evans version of the Wellerman. I was wondering if there were any editors that specialise more in articles about songs to give the page a look over. It's a bit historical, about the original version, mixed with a bit about the new cover versions of the song. Not sure if it all looks right when comes to these articles normally. Also, there is a discussion to move the page from Soon May the Wellerman Come to just Wellerman you might want to join in on.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Music Network

I emailed The Music Network and they said "Singles to Radio is a chart put together by the editorial team based on tracks that are officially serviced to radio each week." Given this, I would consider songs on this list singles because they were serviced to radio with an official date. Heartfox (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Australian charts are not my area – maybe the Australian editors Ss112, Nqr9 and Tobyjamesaus may have something to add here. As an addition to the above question, is the Music Network's "Country Hot 50" an acceptable chart for use on Wikipedia? I've seen it added to some articles. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the Australian charts or new releases/what constitutes a 'single' in the digital/streaming era.Nqr9 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not Australian but I’d like to chime in. I say that most of the songs pushed by TMN should be referred to as singles, but, for songs like The Archer (song), which was clearly a promo single, this shouldn't be changed. As well, pages like Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song) have had talk discussions on the reliability of TMN, so I think a courtesy pinging of all editors involved before changing the song to single status would be a good idea. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI here's a screenshot of their response on Imgur just for clarity. I'm not saying that absolutely everything listed there should be a single (I shouldn't have rushed to say that, I do like to hear what other people have to say), but with this new clarity hopefully more context is available for additional discussion regarding the usage of TMN in articles. Heartfox (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

'everlasting love' song

no mention of version by U2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.147.102 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it isn't notable and doesn't pass WP:SONGCOVER. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Should Everlasting Love be removed from Category:U2 songs then? That category is the only mention of U2 on the page, if the cover isn't notable then should it still be listed in the category? QuietHere (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a cute little story on the background of U2's version from the writers of the song.[6] It did chart minimally, and I would think it would be worthy of a mention in the "Other versions" section alongside such notable versions by Louise Mandrell and Kerry Norton. :) Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "Trini Dem Girls" a single

There's an interesting discussion about the status of "Trini Dem Girls" as a single from The Pinkprint. Please see here. It's all based on whether articles that call a song a single before its release date but without any "post-release date" coverage should be referred to as singles. Feel free to comment ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Using the word 'nod'

Is it wrong to say x song or album received a nod from x organization or x body to avoid repeating the word nomination twice in the same sentence? I undid an edit that removed 'nod' (the user claimed it is informal gossip blog lang) because I have seen commonplace usage of the word on Wikipedia (which is exactly what I said in my edit summary) so to the best of my knowledge it is acceptable. Minutes ago, my undo was reverted by the same user who told me not to "argue the term end of discussion". So is it ok to use or not? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say definitely not. "Nod" is slang and jargonistic, like using kudos or plaudits when describing a highly favourable critical reception. As always, I guess it depends when you look on Wikipedia – I've never seen nod used in any articles (unless it's for a movement of the head, of course). JG66 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@JG66: examples of usage easily found on WP:

Grammy Award for Album of the Year#Achievements: "Barbra Streisand has the most nominations amongst female artists with six nods."
63rd Annual Grammy Awards#Pre-ceremony: "...including Album of the Year as well as several nods for his single "Blinding Lights"."
Kathy Bates (lead): "Bates received subsequent Oscar nods in the Best Supporting Actress category..."
John Legend#2004–2007: Breakthrough success: "...while lead single "Save Room" received a nod in the Best Male Pop Vocal category."
Octavia Spencer#2010–2019: "...making her the first black actress to receive two consecutive Oscar nods in back-to-back years..."
Latin American Music Awards of 2021: "J Balvin and Karol G lead the nominations, with nine nods each."
2017 MTV Video Music Awards#Winners and nominees: "...while Katy Perry, The Weeknd, and DJ Khaled received the second most nods with five."

So like I said, commonplace usage. These are just a handful of instances I'm citing, but there's lots more. If it's jargon we shouldn't be using, how come no one flagged it on any of these articles (both old and recent)? I can't recall seeing it mentioned in any MOS documentation/guidelines as a word to watch/avoid (nor does it match what I know the definition of slang to be). Ofc if it is, please point me in that direction. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You asked, so I gave you my opinion. It's a cringeworthy term, imo. And by the sound of it, I'm echoing what the editor reverting you has said. Personally, I've no interest in whether there are numerous examples of it across the encyclopedia, just like I'm not interested in any example of crap writing here unless I'm actually editing or expanding the article; but I'm confident no semi-experienced, competent GA or FA reviewer would let it go through. Besides, the term's so easily avoided: instead of something "getting the nod", it can be recognised, selected, chosen, picked, etc.

If I'm watching Premier League football, I'd expect a commentator to say a player gets the nod over another one to start the game, because, in that context, anything more formal would seem out of place and almost grate. But the situation's reversed when it comes to reading an encyclopedic article, because one's not looking for colour, informality or atmosphere, just plain English. JG66 (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is sufficiently well understood, yes. I would not use it for the first mention, per WP:COLLOQUIAL, if the nominations cannot be grouped together, it could be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would avoid using the term if I was writing an article, but I wouldn't make a point of going through other articles to change it. There are terms I find much worse when used on Wikipedia music articles - "spawned" and "moniker" are two that spring to mind. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Same. Yes, it's widely understood, but so is "ain't", but that doesn't mean we use that here. I'd also be of the mindset that it's generally too informal for an encyclopedia. I'd compare it to how you can commonly find a source that calls something "a hit single", but you wouldn't generally see a Wikipedia article starting of as "Smells Like Teen Spirit is the hit single by Nirvana." You'd be hard pressed for someone to argue that single wasn't a "hit", but we still generally don't use that sort of language. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Good points (ain't; is a hit single), and well put. My feeling is avoid the term at all costs. I don't see "received the nod" as any different from some overly elegant and unnecessary wording like "Rolling Stone also gave the album a thumbs-up." I mean [from one of the examples above], "two consecutive Oscar nods" ... seriously?! That's so Entertainment Tonight, but Wikipedia is not ET, and it's not Hollywood Reporter or Variety either. JG66 (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: agreed... given that very few singles are likely to have an entry on Wikipedia unless they charted somewhere in the world, "hit" seems a superfluous word. Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah we should avoid this - it has no advantage, it's colloquial, it's not the simplest solution. Just use WP:PLAINENGLISH.

Barbra Streisand has the most nominations amongst female artists with six nods.

- - >

Barbra Streisand has six nominations, the most of any female artist.

Simpler, more concise. Popcornfud (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Flippin' inspired, that. JG66 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at these examples again, a lot of the use "nod" seems to come from an aversion to using the word "nomination" or "nominated" twice... which looks like a good plug for the Problem with elegant variation essay. Popcornfud (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: yes, most repetition or unencyclopedic words can be avoided by just rephrasing the sentence, as you demonstrated above. Instead of "the album spawned three singles", I wish editors would just write "three singles were released from the album". And "alias" or "pseudonym" are much better alternatives to "moniker". Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just recently I had a non-editor friend who mentioned how much the word "spawned" made his skin crawl whenever he's reading about video games on Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, funny you raise that, Poppie, because I was thinking of you and WP:ELVAR. It is as you say, to avoid repetition of nomination/nominated – and Carlobunnie said as much at the start. Carlo, if you want to take this further, might be an idea to open an RfC. Here at WP:Songs, I think it's safe to say most editors would be familiar with music journalese and the idea of artists or works receiving the nod. But if you want to get some idea of how the term's received across the encyclopedia, you'd best send the question out to people way outside of this project. JG66 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the replies. I think I understand a bit better now. I will say tho, that the editor who wrote the sentence in the article on which I was rv'd is one who has multiple GAs so you can see how that would make it harder for others to think it shouldn't be used. And JG66, at the risk of this sounding like a cop out, I don't think I could open an rfc even if it does sound like a good idea. Those things can be stressful and my anxiety would not be able to handle that—just potentially thinking about it makes me anxious. Just asking questions on talk pages alone is nerve-wracking enough for me (I had to re-read your 2nd reply more than 6 times to convince myself you weren't being passive-aggressively rude to me after I shared those examples). However, if anyone else thinks it's a good idea to start one and is willing to do so, that would be great. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Carlobunnie, I'm sorry if my comments or the tone caused any offence. Chances are (if I'm honest about it), I probably was being rude – not to you, but in reaction to articles stating that professional organisations dish out "nods" to runners-up. I'm all for informality, cheekiness and colloquialisms on talk pages (too much so, I'm sure); the point I'm making is that it really jars, imo, when they're present in our articles. I've been put right in my own writing by other editors here over the years, and in most cases it's very welcome. Popcornfud just mentioned "spawned", a word I occasionally see used for when an album produced a hit single or two ... "skin crawl" comes close to my reaction to that one as well. Again, sorry for the unnecessary attitude. JG66 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Brazil charts

Because of a recent exchange I had with another editor who pointed out a discrepancy between the article for the Miley Cyrus song We Can't Stop and the Portuguese version of the article, I dug into the history of that article and found this edit from 2014, changing the Brazil chart positions without explanation. The same editor made a similar edit to Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song). I also looked into the history of Thrift Shop, which also had a discrepancy, and discovered the contributions of 186.225.219.250 (talk · contribs), who seems to have spent about two years making edits like this, changing double-digit Brazil chart positions to 1 (or 2 or 3). I'm not very familiar with the usual sources and standards for chart numbers, so I'm hoping that someone who can verify Brazilian chart numbers can look into this.—ShelfSkewed Talk 22:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ShelfSkewed. Well, that's quite a mess; thanks for bringing it here.

I have started going though all of 186.225.219.250's "contributions" to see what's what. While "We Can't Stop" cites an actual magazine (unfortunately without page numbers) to which I have no access, I am so convinced that the IP's edits are pure inflationary invention that I will simply revert such changes categorically.

I say "simply", but that's a bit of a fib because these changes were made in 2019 and I want to check each article to see what other changes have been made in the meantime, and check the sources I can.

I won't get through them all tonight, but I'll do what I can to correct at least all of this user's edits. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If you guys need any Portuguese language proofreading, I'll be happy to help. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 15:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes: I think the problem here is not the language, because we are only talking about chart positions... I think the problem is that we don't have any access to publications to be able to verify the chart positions, because they are not available online. Do you know of a library or an archive which has old copies of Billboard Brasil? I know that here in Colombia, even though the Colombian edition of Billboard is still published here, it is extremely difficult to find, because almost no shop stocks it, and I have no idea if any library holds back issues of the magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any archive for the magazine. Not even their website is available anymore, it's a shame. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Justin Bieber Song "Holy"

Is it accurate to say that "Holy" is "about Bieber's love for his wife Hailey Bieber and his love of God"? I'm sure Justin contributed, but it looks like there are eleven writers on the song, and that Jon Bellion may have performed it with most of the lyrics intact, minus Chance's verse, before Justin was involved at all.

Here are the lyrics as performed in a bootleg recording released by a fan -- https://lyrics.lol/artist/26593-jon-bellion/lyrics/5277132-holy
Here are the final lyrics in Justin Chance's version -- https://genius.com/Justin-bieber-holy-lyrics

Bootleg recordings:

The first of these seems to be from Jon's performance at Oakland University on July 30, 2019, with most of the final lyrics intact. The song was released on Sep 18, 2020, more than a year later.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBellion/comments/ivagzg/surprise_you_didnt_get_baited_sending_thoughts/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBellion/comments/iv5s30/i_found_this_on_twitter_this_is_not_my_recording/

I have no idea if the fan claims are true, but it bothers me to see an "encyclopedic" article claiming that a song is about the main performer's life, when there is no way of knowing how much they actually contributed to the lyrics. Are we really here to reinforce the mythos marketed by PR companies? Jeremyagottfried (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source should be found to support the claim, or should be removed. WP:NOR applies. We do not interpret lyrics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. It should be based around what reliable sources say. (From professional publications, not reddit threads.) If none of the sources directly attribute the sentiment to Bieber, it could be worded more like "(Publication name) interpreted the song to be about Bieber's wife Hailey" or something to that effect. Sergecross73 msg me 11:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering the source is from Elle (not a music publication, but a reliable one), and the article is titled "Justin Bieber's 'Holy' Lyrics Are About Why He Married Hailey Bieber So Fast — and How Much He Loves God", then yes, we have a reliable source that states that the song is about Bieber's love for his wife Hailey and his love of God. I agree with Sergecross though, I think it might be a good idea to reword that sentence as "According to Elle magazine, the song is about..." or "The song is said to be about..." and not be so definitive. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Track listings

Hello all! I just have a quick question about the track listings section of a WP:SONGS article. In modern promotional campaigns, many artists release remixes to boost sales, which of course are put in the track listings section of the article. So my question is, should it be listed as "Song name (alternate version title)" or "Song name" (alternate version title). Essentially, should the note be inside the quotation marks or outside. Based on the WP:SONGS models, it should go outside the quotation marks but I am still unsure as some remixes that are released as singles need to have the note inside the quotation marks. Personally, I think they should go outside with ones released as singles on the inside but I thought I should come here to check. Any help would be amazing. LOVI 33 22:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:MUSICCAPS might help. It says words like remix should not be capitalised. The titles of songs are usually taken from the chorus or beat of the song. The word "remix" is an appendage to the song title. The format I use is "Song name" (alternative version title) and if that includes a featured artist either "Song name" (alternative version title; featuring artist) OR "Song name" (alternative version title) (featuring artist) ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@LOVI33: I considered putting the titles of the remixes into quotation marks because each one is a different job. And as I pointed out in the edit summaries: it can be seen in the title of the article "Levitating (The Blessed Madonna Remix)" that the parenthesis into the quotation marks was taken into account because it is a different work from the original. I think the notes should be used to indicate if the track has a featuring or is acoustic. A specific case in which it there are no parentheses into the quotation marks is the remix of "Levitating" with DaBaby, the parenthesis of "(DaBaby Remix)" was not put because the single was simply not credited with that title but only as "Levitating". Alexismata7 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I would argue "Song name" (alternate version title) is correct. The "remix" or "edit" part is not part of the title, but describes an attribute, just like deluxe edition of an album, or first edition of a book. You don't capitalize them as they are not part of the title and it's not in the quotes for the same reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexismata7: that is exactly why I came here because I always thought that it wasn't part of the title but then again there was the Levitating remix. But just thinking about it, if we have the name of the remix in quotation marks, then acoustic and featuring should also go in as they are the same sort of "note" as a remix. That would just make the "note" parameter in the track listing template completely useless and that just doesn't make sense. LOVI 33 13:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It should go outside the quotation marks in my opinion, it's not part of the song title, apart from exceptional cases. In the days when you still got physical product for dance music records, the song title would be the only title on the front cover, and then the various remixes were in brackets on the back cover, and none of them would just be the song title on its own - you'd probably have "Original Mix" or "7-Inch Radio Edit" as the first song. This is simply a note to describe the version, in my opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Something to consider: for the infobox chronology, quotation marks are automatically added to entries in |prev_title= and |next_title=, so Song (remix) is rendered "Song (remix)". Adding "Song" (remix) would produce ""Song" (remix)" (too many quote marks). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's right. And – not that it's a requirement to use the template in album track listings, by any means – but Template:Track listing also renders song titles with quote marks. So it wouldn't be possible to have a song title appear as "Levitating" (The Blessed Madonna Remix), surely. JG66 (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, wait a minute. I'm not saying it's easy, or a perfect solution, but at least Template:Track listing has a parameter for each track noten, which puts the specified text in parentheses after the song title. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't looked at it that way. By that I mean, I wouldn't have considered the note parameter was used in this sort of situation. (Then again, I really do dislike the look of Template:Track listing and only ever use it when the list is well and truly "complicated", per MOS:ALBUM#Track listing -> Style and form.) JG66 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Songs recorded in multiple languages

Can anyone point me to a good example I can follow of a song like this, where the subsequent other lang vers is as notable as the original? I can recall seeing editors say it's better to give it a separate section in the article rather than mixing the info about both vers together. I want to rearrange an article for a korean song but idk where the section for its Jpn vers all the related info should go. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like your Ricky Martin or Enrique Iglesias types often had success with English and Spanish language versions of songs. That might be a lead. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Not as easy as you might think, actually. The biggest worldwide hits of Martin and Iglesias ("Livin' la Vida Loca", "Bailamos", "Hero") came after they'd switched to making English-language records. I tried Shakira's records which definitely have Spanish versions for the Latin American market, but they just redirect to the pages for the English versions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: yeah that wasn't really helpful lol. I started going thru Martin's singles discog after your comment and I haven't come across any of his song articles yet that are done the way I'm asking about. And that includes some of the most famous eng ones w alternate spanish versions. I even tried checking some popular eng songs that have notable covers, but the articles for the ones I could think of had just a small section dedicated to covers/parodies. I need a song that had separate charting, its own music video, promotions etc. And ik they exist on WP but my brain is blanking on this. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I really didn't mean to give the impression that I had an easy solution. I only said it because I could personally think of any examples either, and it was a different language combo than your original comment contained. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you looking for something like this? I believe the Beach Boys had some German singles, too, but I can't remember which song(s) they'd be. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Good examples", as in "what a nice B/GA/FA-class article", probably none. Je l'aime à mourir, Dragostea Din Tei, 99 Luftballons, Casi un Bolero, Fernando (song), Moskau (song) or Sailor (song) are examples of articles that divert a little from other mentioned articles. Most multilingual versions look the same because, as Version A and Version B sound exactly the same, there are very few things to discuss that might warrant a division. It's not forbidden though. It mostly depends on how much information you find from Version B that warrants another section. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: not exactly, mainly because that's a standlone article, but its content is similar to what I was talking about. Tbhotch's examples, particularly "Je l'aime à mourir", and "Fernando" to an extent, are more along the lines of what I was trying to find. Tbhotch funny that you mentioned GA/FA because it was actually a comment from an FA admin(?)/reviewer (idr what he's called exactly but he's usually involved in all FAs) about how a GA of a similar nature would need to be reworked to make FA, that made me decide to rearrange this particular article (though it contains considerably less detail than the GA I'm referring to, but I'm working on expanding it). Thank you both for your replies. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant. It's still the same song, as per WP:NSONGS. Whether it should be mentioned in the main article is another discussion.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wreck of the Tennessee Gravy Train

Hi, I could use some help. I found this unsourced article about a 1930 Tennessee folk song, tagged for notability for a while. I think it probably shouldn't have its own article, as besides passing mentions the closest thing I can find to in-depth coverage is this page from American Folk Songs: A Regional Encyclopedia. The problem is that just like the article, the book only focuses on the context of the political scandal which the song is based on, while providing hardly any information about the song itself.

The song is not currently mentioned at Uncle Dave Macon, but one option would be to add a mention there and redirect. ~~What confuses me a bit, though, is that the book states the song was "probably" written and recorded by Macon, without mentioning who else could have possibly written/recorded it.~~ Nevermind, how silly of me: it just says probably in the 1930s, there really is no doubt that it is Macon's. I'm ~~also~~ not sure where/how to best insert a mention of this song into the Macon article, if it's even relevant to mention there at all. Any thoughts about this? Lennart97 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Songs by Artist.

As a formality I am notifying the project that there is a nomination to delete Category:Songs by artist and all sub-cats. It's here. Probably worth checking out. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bethel Music

This is a categorisation query. Should the above be considered a record label or artist? Any input here or at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_13#Category:Bethel_Music_songs would be appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it's not a person, I'm not sure it's an artist, but they have songs associated with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)