Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Rolling Stone charts which may be of interest to the editors of this WikiProject. The Rolling Stone charts, introduced barely two years ago, have been discontinued, and the discussion is whether to keep the RS Top 100 Singles charts in chart tables. Richard3120 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, a new discussion about the MetroLyrics song template, over on Templates for discussion. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The broader discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 20#Works by people not currently known to be notable may be of interest to this WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg has been relisted twice at FFD. The discussion is now located at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 November 28#File:Clash-The Guns of Brixton.ogg. George Ho (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Jess Glynne version of "This Christmas" is discussed at Talk:This Christmas (Donny Hathaway song)#Removed Jess Glynn section. Your inputs are welcome there. George Ho (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it incorrect to say that a musical artist "recorded" their songs when they weren't involved in the actual recording process? I first noticed an editor making this change on Taylor Swift articles, and I've recently started employing this technicality for my own edits. However, several IPs have been manually reverting this change, so I'm wondering if this wording is such a big deal. For example, on "Toxic", the Credits section says that Bloodshy & Avant recorded the actual song while Britney Spears only sang the vocals. She didn't actually do any recording per se. I may be nitpicking here, but isn't it a tad misleading to say something like "'Toxic' is a song recorded by American singer Britney Spears..." True, everyone knows what that means in the casual sense, but getting into the semantics, it lingers on the incorrect. What do you think? Does it matter? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I would think that being present in the recording studio and contributing anything to the music being recording would constitute "recording" in a sense. I don't think that level of nitpicking helps convey the overall message to readers. I also don't think that line of reasoning is very prevalent in the reliable sources we use to write Wikipedia either. They say things like "The Foo Fighters are in the studio recording their new album." Not "Sound engineers Jim Smith and Joe Franken are in the studio recording the new Foo Fighters album." Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

True... This could be common sense. I suppose this is a pet peeve that I should try to avoid exacerbating if someone else wants to reword it. I had a feeling this was doomed from the start anyway, but it's good to receive feedback. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I get where you're going with this, and there's been a similar debate in the video game industry ("Is someone who writes the story of a video game truly a game developer? They're not actually programming anything." Etc) But ultimately, it seems like those sorts of technicalities and hair-splitting aren't really helpful to conveying the overall message of the creation of these given media. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

In the case of "Toxic", it seems "recording" is either substitute for audio engineer or record producer.

if the subject wrote the song, the studio personnel are usually all hired guns and the artist usually has a greadt deal of say in the recording process. Spears, would have had some input. Her A&R people would have had a great deal of say as well, and the producers also would have had a say. I think it's fair to say they all recorded the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Everyone has a hand in the creation of a song, but there are some instances where the artists or other personnel have no creative control whatsoever. I think that's the kind of thing that pop princesses like Mandy Moore and Christina Aguilera had to deal with when they were getting started with their music careers. On the other end of the spectrum, singers like Nerina Pallot assisted with the recording process directly (check out Everybody's Gone to War to see an example of what I mean; the parent album says that she helped record all the album's tracks), so it would make perfect sense to say she recorded her songs. It's more marginal for manufactured artists who jump as high as their executives tell them to. Seeing this kind of thing is what made me seriously question the use of the word "recorded". ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's why it's easier just to say "'Toxic' is a song by Britney Spears..." and just leave out the word "recorded"... Richard3120 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked up my song/album article creating templates, and that's generally the wording I use too, and I don't recall it being contentious in the past. I think the only time it would really need to be mentioned is in those "List of songs recorded by (artist)" type articles (as that's often how they decide what songs are listed or not in those articles.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the project page WP:WikiProject Songs supposed to be an introduction to the WikiProject or a guideline page or an essay page? WP:WikiProject Soap Operas has its own guidelines; so does this WikiProject. However, after reading WP:GUIDES and WP:WikiProjects, I wonder how enforceable the WikiProject Songs's rules are and must be, like WP:SONGCOVER. --George Ho (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there an experienced editor willing to review my draft: Draft:Puppet (Tyler, the Creator song)? Currently User:Cassiopeia does not think it passes WP:NSONG or WP:GNG, and I am not following their reasoning at all.

If anyone is able to review this draft and provide your opinion, it would be greatly appreciated! ––FormalDude talk 09:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Per WP:NSONGS, a song has to receive considerable coverage as an independent body, independent of the album. Although its charted, which certainly helps establish notability, but I struggle to see how an independent article is warranted. The information could easily be contained on the parent album page. Also, we don't quote lyrics - that's a copyright violation. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it charted on multiple national charts would likely put it in pretty good shape if it was ever targeted for deletion, but as noted above, some will take issue if all of its sourcing is strictly in the context of it being part of the album. If every source only discusses it in the context of the album, then it's often believed that Wikipedia should follow suit, and only mention it in its respective album article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Are samples, i.e. audio clips, needed to further understand non-free songs, and must they be preserved/protected? Almost every article about a copyrighted song contains a sample. However, I think the samples merely identify the songs but not in context of what articles say about individual songs. In some cases, a sample is used as part of the lead infobox about a copyrighted song (or recording), which I consider is normally discouraged. I added a rule about such use in MOS:SAMPLE. If we continually preserve such samples, then maybe free text content isn't adequate enough. If understanding a musical term is an issue, why isn't wikilinking an article about such term an adequate alternative to a sample? Or, why else preserving/protecting a sample, i.e. an audio clip? --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The "rule" that you added to MOS:Music sample doesn't appear to have been discussed first or reflect consensus (see WP:GUIDES). According to whom is "adding a non-free sample to a lead infobox is normally discouraged"? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As I assume, you object, so I reverted the inclusion. Nonetheless, I've PRODded samples and listed them at FFD. As I see, ogg files were taken to FFD, but I've seen most, if not all, deletions of non-free samples endorsed. I searched for MP3, FLAC and WAV files there without avail. There was one VPP discussion focused on samples vs cover arts being used to identify song releases... or songs themselves. I just implied that the discussion was about using them as lead images or lead samples. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I approve of the proposed rule, to account for the requirement that non-free samples must appear alongside a suitable contextual description of what is heard on the sample, and because infoboxes should never have lengthy descriptions. The two guidelines combine to prohibit non-free samples in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In an article about a song, a sample of the audio of that song clearly satisfies the contextual significance criterion of "significantly increasing readers' understanding of the article topic". It is far more useful in identifying and understanding the subject of the article than the non-free cover art which we automatically allow as a freebie with no requirement for sourced commentary. (Heck, maybe the non-free audio sample should be the freebie, and the cover art should be included only if it's the subject of sourced commentary!) Colin M (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Simply having an article about a song does not automatically mean a sample is warranted. A sample is generally only warranted if the nature of the song is unusual, or the contents of the sample are clearly described. In short, the fair-use criteria, even when used in lectures or other public demonstrations of the song, has generally held that the sample itself must be of significance and it is what is being explained, not simply there as decoration. A legal expert should be weighing in, particularly one familiar with copyright law in the US, UK, and other English-language nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion at FfD regarding an audio sample used in a song article. It involves interpretation of NFCC#8 contextual significance and may be of interest to members of this project. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the FFD discussion, Template:Audio sample/doc and Template:Listen/doc currently has instructions discouraging use of non-free audio or video clips in infoboxes and encouraging use of such clips in body. Oh, and as I found out, Binksternet added the instructions last year: ([1],[2]). –George Ho (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet also last year created a rule about using samples and article text associating each other. I discussed the added rule with him, but that was about slightly modifying it, not about the whole rule itself. George Ho (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It still needs consensus, which I haven't seen. The last RfC regarding audio samples by Binkster closed as "oppose". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Additions by Binksternet removed/reverted: [3],[4],[5]. George Ho (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Just created a new article for the 1971 White Plains song. Since it was created over a redirect, it may not list in automatically created tables. Hence announcing it in its WP. If someone wants to take a look, very welcome! gidonb (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated My Belarusy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I started the discussion about using samples in lead sections about a month ago at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72#Using non-free audio samples in lead sections. --George Ho (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. So, in the past, The Music Network has been stated to be an unreliable source for radio impact dates. However recently my edit, when I removed Australia radio impact date from the release table that used TMN as its source got reverted, so is TMN unreliable or is it reliable? :v infsai (talkie? UwU) 11:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That conversation sounds pretty conclusive to me: use the prose, avoid the charts. If your edit was removing TMN chart data (which it sounds like it was) then you should be fine to make that move. QuietHere (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@QuietHere and Infsai: TMN shows that songs that are at radio not that it has been released/serviced or sent to radio by a station so it is not a release date. TMN should not be used to source a song's release without secondary sources. There are many times when TMN has shown two differently consecutive dates (in different weeks) for a song, or when album tracks and iTunes countdown tracks have been "released to radio" - they haven't. If a song is released it usually gets other coverage. Secondary and supporting sources should be used. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Are TopHit sources like this a reliable/notable source for saying a song was released as a single? I think secondary/third sources should be used to support things? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: The source is reliable for charts, but for claiming that a song is notable? I think not. Although the song has received airplay in Russia/the CIS, it was promo-only according to Confetti. So, in short, no, this is not enough support. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, its suitable for charts but the source only shows that stations played a song, not that the song itself was released. I've seen top hit appear several times used in this way. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just going to start a discussion on this. I have done some research and for artists such as Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande, there seem to be many promotional singles and album tracks that have "impacted" but have no other evidence that they are singles. But what's particularly concerning to me is that on Dua Lipa's page, TopHit lists an unreleased collaboration with Miley Cyrus, "LA Money", as well as an unreleased version of her song "If It Ain't Me" that features Normani. So definitely, TopHit should not be used for release dates. LOVI33 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@LOVI33: Don't you mean the site shouldn't be used as a valid claim of notability? I don't see any problems with using the release dates TopHit provides if they actually were released as singles and experienced success. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: no, I think the site should solely be used for charts. To me, it wouldn't make sense if we used the release dates for just singles and not promotional singles and album tracks. I think that specifically the album track "release dates" prove that these release dates are unreliable and should not be used. LOVI33 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@LOVI33: I see what you mean. I recently saw several editors adding these dates but only did so myself about five or six times before I stopped because I kept coming across anachronisms (e.g. Starsailor's "Alcoholic" was released in the UK in 2001 but wasn't serviced to Russian radio until 2020?) If you want to start a discussion about TopHit, it should be about this. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the release dates appear to be inaccurate. For example, TopHit claims that Dua Lipa's song "Levitating" featuring DaBaby impacted on 24 July 2020, when the song wasn't even released digitally until 1 October 2020. It doesn't make sense. LOVI33 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

However, I'd also like to point out that there are some cases where's there's nothing wrong with the dates. Kristian Leontiou's "Story of My Life" is reasonable. Robbie Williams' "Tripping" is reasonable. t.A.T.u.'s "All About Us" is definitely reasonable since they're a Russian group. Radio airplay is a finicky topic that seems to be an issue for only a select group of songs, especially after the digital era commenced. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think, based on the Taylor Swift page, for example, that the "on air release date" is not actually a release date but the date when TopHit first tracked that a radio station aired the song (although some songs are still listed but have zero airplay?). If a record label was releasing these songs I don't think there would be so many releases. It seems that these are songs that TopHit has released for download to radio themselves, perhaps as promo. But unlike the US, these songs do not seem to be "radio singles" in which the label actually spends money marketing and promoting it to radio stations. Songs with 27 and 34 airs are clearly not singles promoted by a label, but songs radio stations themselves chose to play. Given this, and because there seems to be a lack of secondary sources about TopHit, I don't think we can use the release dates as proof of a song being a single (or promo single) and they should not be in release history tables. It does not seem to be an official release by a record label, but radio stations playing the song on their own accord. I stopped adding TopHit to release histories a while ago. Heartfox (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. LOVI33 03:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, TopHit should only count as a promo single indicator if the song didn't receive any other release treatment (besides already released to download/streaming as a promo single). infsai (talkie? UwU) 19:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. That would mean numerous album tracks such as "August", "London Boy" and "Test Drive" should be considered promotional singles when they barely had any radio airplay in Russia and no other evidence of a promotional single push. I think Heartfox and Lil-unique are right in the sense that the "on-air release date" is only the first time a song was simply played on a radio station that TopHit tracks. LOVI33 23:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So, what is the concencus? Should we remove all TopHit releases from release history tables or only some? Because I would argue since TopHit is a reliable source for charts, then the songs that have their own pages on TopHit should count as at least promotional radio releases. Because now, not all songs have their pages, because of that I wouldn't count those (e.g. Katy Perry's "Witness", Britney Spears' "Breathe on Me", or Taylor Swift's "August"), since we cannot even see what label published them. infsai (talkie? UwU) 11:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Infsai: your point about them having pages on TopHit making them promo singles is original research and synthesis. In terms of the markets for Western music, Russia is fairly insignificant. Its highly unlikely that record labels go out of their way to service songs in Russia that aren't serviced anywhere else. A song release whether its digital, streaming or airplay needs a reliable/explicit source. All TopHit shows is when songs have started tracking on radio, not when a song has been sent or released. Tracking on radio is reactive, stations can play music if they want without it being sent from the label. When a song is officially released, this is proactive. Unless its explicitly clear in prose or language that a song has been sent to the radio industry or been made available for adds, its not a radio/promo single. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: So now should we remove TopHit from articles and declassify some songs from promo singles status (e.g. "Off the Table")? infsai (talkie? UwU) 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no any of release date of anything - this is just date since when song is aired on Russian radio. Eurohunter (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Another issue is that TopHit never gives the label that "releases" the song, only the copyright/publishing. As a sidenote, Mariah Carey's page is hilarious. "I'll Be There" was apparently "released" in 2011, and re-released in 2020 lol... Also for Italy dates, we need to stop adding "contemporary hit radio". There is no indication that it is released to a specific radio format, just that it is released to radio in general. Heartfox (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: What do you mean by Italy dates? You mean like something on Thank God I Found You? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: No, I mean dates from earone.it or radiodate.it. The "Power Players" at Music & Media shouldn't even be cited because how can one radio station's playlist add represent a "release" to an entire country's radio stations? Heartfox (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Ah. I haven't heard of earone.it or radiodate.it until now, so this is new territory for me. Regardless, I agree with your stance on the "Power Players" dates, so you should probably remove them when you see them or at least try to conversate with the user who added them. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: So radiodate.it and earone.it are unreliable too? infsai (talkie? UwU) 03:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Infsai: No, those are the most reliable! Those websites host press releases from record labels that x song is being released to radio. It's just that editors write "contemporary hit radio" in release histories even though the press releases never specify that it is only impacting that format. It should just say "radio", not "contemporary hit radio". Heartfox (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Ah, it's this way, okay! Thanks for the clarification. By the way, if it should be signed simply as "Radio" not "Contemporary hit radio", should it pipe to somewhere? infsai (talkie? UwU) 03:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Infsai: I think Radio airplay could work. Heartfox (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

After familiarizing myself much more with the MOS in the past year or two, as well as perusing the discussions here, I've become much bolder when editing, but I still develop questions from time to time, especially for things that don't seem to be adequately addressed in the MOS. We'll just start with this one for today: this should probably be removed, right? Not only does it present an excessive, fancruft-y amount of detail, but the one source cited is Rate Your Music, which is explicitly forbidden in WP:ALBUMAVOID. MOS:MUSIC also states that track listing sections generally aren't included on song/single pages. On a related note, I actually came across several Beck album pages recently with release history tables, albeit less detailed, but ultimately made an executive decision to wipe those. I had never seen tables like that before on any album page here at WP...not even ones with massive notability. I've seen a good amount of concern expressed on here recently that WP seems to be turning into Discogs and I've been trying to be mindful of that when editing. Thoughts? — The Keymaster (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Found another one. Yikes. Surely this is overkill, yes? — The Keymaster (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:MUSIC says it's not standard practice to include a track listing section for a single that was only released as an A-side and B-side, as in the entire section is just ==Track listing== "A-side" — 1:00, "B-side" — 1:00. It says nothing about forbidding track listings when they are lengthy or have multiple versions, especially when the other tracks listed are the subject of commentary in the article, as remixes often are.

In cutting the release history section from Morning Phase you removed the only citation which supports the album's release date in the infobox. I think you should be more careful with your edits to not make information unsourced. I think there's a difference between release history sections with dates/formats/label/region/valid source, and the ones you gave that are overly detailed with listings of catalog numbers and reissues that are badly sourced. Release history sections provide valuable context, and in a more reader-friendly way than prose can. Often when something is released in multiple regions, the word "various" is used to not make the table oversized.

Chart positions are provided for every country, and often the position is quite low. Does anyone outside of a fan really care that x song charted on x chart at number 199? Is that fancruft? No, so something even more basic as a release date, region, and label should not be considered fancruft either. Examples of featured article albums with release history sections include 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and Red (Taylor Swift album). Examples of featured article songs with release history sections include All About That Bass and Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). Heartfox (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Amazon and iTunes links in the table for the U.S. release of Morning Phase? That's something that can easily be pasted back into the infobox/lead, if necessary. But would a release date also fall under readily verifiable information that doesn't need a source? If not, I'm wondering why that wasn't referenced at the top of the article to begin with.

Is there a consensus as to whether these "release history tables" are acceptable or not? The discussions I've been following seem to discourage such material, and as I said, there are countless historically significant releases that don't include them. — The Keymaster (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, isn't sourcing from Amazon and iTunes discouraged here anyway? — The Keymaster (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, found it: "Online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.com should also be avoided. It can be seen as inappropriate to directly link to a site where one can purchase the subject in question. Wikipedia's role should not be used to advance the sale of an album nor to promote one retailer over another." — The Keymaster (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe these tables (or their content) are useful at all. Besides, it's secondary sources that should guide us as to what's worthy of inclusion. I can't believe those two Taylor Swift album articles cited above ever made it through FAC. Firstly, because the relevant sections are filled with various Amazon listings as sources; also because, well ... who cares when or that a Karaokee version was issued in Canada?!

The comparison made by Heartfox between a national chart peak and a release date in each particular region is way off, imo. The chart peaks are a reflection of a song or album's popularity around the world; giving each and every release date is a just misguided attempt to be thorough, perhaps, but it doesn't belong here – it's fancruft. JG66 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is kind of my thinking as well. Exhaustive release histories seem to me to be teetering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — The Keymaster (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think removing release history tables is a monumentally horrible idea. The Keymaster's argument started as more of a track listing issue, but seeing as the discussion title is on-topic... I will admit that I've sourced Amazon and iTunes frequently, but I always looks for better sources when possible, and when these better sources are used with tables that don't go overboard, they aren't that much of a problem. Look at the release history section for "Nobody's Supposed to Be Here", which contains three entries, all referenced with highly reputable sources whose information makes logical sense if you check chart entries. As you can see, if you remove this table, the release date will no longer be cited, and this information wouldn't fit anywhere else in the article's current prose without creating a stubby subsection. This is what Heartfox was trying to say: I think you should be more careful with your edits to not make information unsourced—a similar problem exists with deleting track listings. I've recently spent the past few months going through song article from approx. 1995–2006 adding release history sections to combat this exact issue, so I'm not thrilled this issue is being brought up. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to restore the few release history tables I've deleted and leave any I come across alone for the time being, but it seems there's no consensus on whether these are even necessary at the moment. Also, if initial release dates require a source, shouldn't the reference be placed in the infobox and/or lead? — The Keymaster (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Dates aren't supposed to be cited in the infobox or lead if they are cited later in the article, but I added the citation there since the previous date on "Nobody's Supposed to Be Here" was different. Just for good measure. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This feels similar to ballooning pop culture sections, where rampant IP addresses will try to add every single time a song has been used in a film or TV show, as if Wiki is IMDB. I'm not sure how these sections would be referenced by reliable secondary sources, given that even some of the most popular artists will not have exhaustive lists of these things outside of fan sites or Discogs. The fact that FAs are reduced to citing Amazon and iTunes is concerning. Release histories ought to be canned completely and replaced with the simpler Discogs master template in an external links section (e.g., The Velvet Underground & Nico at Discogs (list of releases)) Tkbrett (✉) 13:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Tkbrett. WP:SONGS#Single track listings gives additional clarification: "However, in more complex situations, such as when multiple formats/tracks/remixes are discussed in the article, they may be justified." Long lists of miscellaneous details with no discussion of what's important or significant (like this for a cover version) does not provide encyclopedic content and may give undue weight to a relatively minor point. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Tkbrett, your Discogs template idea seems to me like the best possible solution. Especially with the seemingly growing concern that Wikipedia itself is turning into Discogs. And I agree about the "In popular culture" sections. That also goes for the exhaustive "Cover versions" sections that want to list every single cover version of a song ever recorded, no matter how insignificant. — The Keymaster (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Release dates are valid information, so either it's going to be in prose or more readable in a table. When I add a release history, such as Anytime You Need a Friend#Release history, I only cite secondary sources or the record label's official website. I don't include releases that can be sourced from iTunes or Amazon simply because they exist there. So, I am not defending the use of iTunes/Amazon (though in some cases it is genuinely the only source), but removing every release history table because some are poorly sourced is not really a good argument. The Keymaster, you have zero basis for acting superior about sources. You left the release date of Morning Phase unsourced and still have not restored a source because "would a release date also fall under readily verifiable information that doesn't need a source"?" I highly doubt an unsourced release date would get through GAN, much less FAC. Are you seriously saying that citing nothing is better than citing iTunes?

I would also make the argument that they comply with WP:GLOBAL. Many times in articles I have seen only the US release date given. However, when a release history is added, it turns out it was first released in a different country, and now the article is more accurate. We provide the chart for a country. We provide the certification in a country. What's wrong with providing the release date? Heartfox (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you figure I have "zero basis"? Amazon and iTunes are explicitly considered to be inappropriate sources in WP:ALBUMAVOID. And I'm not "seriously saying" anything. I simply asked a question. — The Keymaster (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Heartfox. It's not our duty to remove useful, reliably cited information simply because the IPs can easily abuse it, like what Tkbrett was saying. As I have said before, I have cited Amazon and iTunes in the past—this I'll admit without hesitation—but I always look for reliable sources regardless and am trying to stop myself from going to these sites. Furthermore, if we remove release histories, pages such as Goodbye (Spice Girls song) might become a battleground for edit warring since the song was released in the US before the UK and the readers think it's untrue, which it isn't. However, the clear issue here is with the usage of Amazon, iTunes, etc., so we should focus on these platforms right now instead of declaring that all release history tables are unfit for inclusion simply because editors were too busy/lazy/inexperienced to locate better sources. That's careless. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My point is not so much that IPs will abuse this, rather its that the information is not significant enough to warrant inclusion. One of Heartfox's examples is the article for Red. It uses Amazon to date the standard and deluxe release dates in China. Unless this release is important enough to be reported in a reliable secondary source, which it doesn't appear to be, we ought to avoid including it. This is what I mean when I say Wikipedia is not IMDb or a fan site, listing releases purely for the sake of it. The article includes the Los Angeles Times' reporting on the October 22, 2012 release, which is enough. Tkbrett (✉) 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am in favor of showing a topic's significant facts, and removing insignificant facts. If one or two song remixes are significant, does that open the door to show all the released versions of a song? I don't think so. It's enough to describe the important releases in prose. Regarding a release history table, I find those a useful tool during arguments about a song's release date, for instance a song that was released earlier in a distant country, followed by the artist's own country. In those cases, the release table helps to prove the earlier date and settle the argument. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is also what I'm trying to say. There are significant dates and insignificant dates. Dates from sources like Billboard, Music Week, and the ARIA Report are significant because they are reliable sources that cover a major music market. It's up to us to determine which sources pass this threshold of significance. Amazon fails big-time and makes an FA article like Red look cheaply made. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's another example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. Considering how many versions of this song have been released, is a chart like this helpful? Sure. But it could also be construed as an indiscriminate collection of information. And, more importantly, not a single bit of it is sourced.

If the couple of release history tables I've deleted should be restored, how do we propose that be done? With each reference replaced by a "better source needed" tag? With "Modigliani (Lost in Your Eyes)," I opted to keep the chart intact for now and just tagged the entire section, but I don't know if that's the best way to go about doing this...or, based on this discussion, if the chart is even necessary in the first place. I do a lot of editing here and I hope we can reach a consensus on this so I know what to do going forward. — The Keymaster (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the table on "Modigliani", I don't find that one useful since it doesn't list any specific dates, and it is unsourced but tagged, so you should wait a few weeks to give other people a chance to add citations. If nothing happens by then, remove it and leave a concise explanation in your edit summary. If you encounter Amazon or another iffy source, it is best to tag it with a "better source needed" template. What you do afterwards is your choice. I usually don't do anything else, but sometimes I find something better. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm on the lookout for reliable websites to use when sourcing song keys and beats per minute (i.e. BPM); I'e found several in the past that appear user-generated and are thus unable to be used. Are there any that are typically reliable, or is it a case-by-case basis? Sean Stephens (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any that aren't UGC. The best sources are often sheet music books which focus on the artist or album, such as those by Hal Leonard and Alfred Music. Fake books ("101 Classic Rock songs") often transpose the key to make it more instrument friendly and should not be relied on. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Beatport and Juno Download. Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Comparing the details for the same song on both sites shows two very different bpms (about double). Also, checking against an Alfred artist songbook shows some wildly divergent bpms (42 vs 117, 68 vs 148, etc.). It doesn't look like these can be considered reliable. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: You can cite both sources and add explanation about differences in note. Eurohunter (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

? The sources are the ones you listed (not linked and without any explanation), plus Alfred music, which is linked above. The differences are also noted above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: What do you mean? I mean you can add such a note in article and it's example. Eurohunter (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If a website is unreliable, it should not be added even as an example. Furthermore, if it's incorrect, there is more reason not to add it. You may want to review WP:Identifying Reliable Sources and WP:Verifiability. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Musicologist Walter Everett lists the bpm of 570 different songs in his 2009 book The Foundations of Rock (Oxford University Press, pp. 318–321). The book only covers 1955–69 though, so I'm not sure how useful it'll prove. Tkbrett (✉) 16:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it now (two different versions of "Sitting on Top of the World" are listed at opposite ends, with Grateful Dead's at 252 and Cream's at 44 bpm). He makes an interesting point about "19th Nervous Breakdown" being 96 bpm, but its "beat subdivisions make it seem twice as fast" or 192 bpm. This might partly explain why some websites have so much variation: their algorithms are getting the beats mixed up. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Universal Music Publishing has a song database for their releases which list some BPMS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like more of the same. It also has genre, lyrical theme, "melodic mood", etc. Who knows where it gets these. It's like the sidebar info at AllMusic. Tunebat includes a disclaimer:

The results you see on this page are estimates. The accuracy of these estimates has been measured across multiple large data sets and compared to several prominent commercial key and BPM detection algorithms. For some datasets this finder proved more accurate than existing commercial key and BPM detection tools. But for other data sets this finder was less accurate. Overall you can expect results from this finder to be as accurate as key and BPM finders found in other commercial softwares, more or less.

Apparently, like many sites, there is not sufficient oversight or quality control. More or less ...

—Ojorojo (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps unless the artist, producer or sound engineer is citing is then perhaps we shouldn't use BPM. I've always thought it was superfluous/fancrufty. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the similarity between what I believe are harmonica riffs on Jethro Tull's Song for Jeffrey and the theme music for The Old Grey Whistle test by Area Code 615?Bluesgranpa (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This is something I've seen on occasion in articles about songs, and it doesn't look correct to me. In the article about Elton John's song "Made in England", we see the following table under Release history:

Region	Date	Format(s)	Label(s)	Ref.
United Kingdom	8 May 1995	CD cassette	Rocket	[1]
United States	20 June 1995	Contemporary hit radio		[2]

Note that the "formats" for the UK are physical formats on which the song was released for sale as a single, but in the US it's a radio format. The implication from this is, at least, that "Made in England" was not released as a physical single in the US, but in fact it was released in the US as a single on cassette, CD, and vinyl. (See [6], p. 7; the "(C)(D)(T)(V)(X)" indicates the physical formats on which the single was available.)

I was involved in a discussion about this at Talk:Look What You Made Me Do#Release history a few years ago, but several of the people who responded to me thought it was indeed appropriate to mix physical formats and radio formats together in one table. This still makes no sense to me, though. Could we possibly get either a project-wide policy against mixing physical formats and radio formats in tables like this, or, at minimum, a good explanation of why they ought to be mixed? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: There's a somewhat similar discussion taking place above this one, but I'll answer here. As the user who added this chart in the first place, the first thing I'd like to note is that contemporary hit radio IS a format—a radio format. It's not a physical format, but it's still a format. I've encountered separate radio history and physical history tables before, but I combined them because I think using two tables is redundant. Meanwhile, I search for physical release dates when possible, but trying to pinpoint an American commercial release date from a reliable source is like looking for a needle in a haystack, especially after December 1998. Regardless, the date is sourced reliably, so I don't see a problem. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, do you mean that you added this chart to Made in England (song) or to some other article? And if you can't find an American commercial release date for a physical single, shouldn't you at least include the year of release? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: Yes, I mean "Made in England", plus many, many other articles. Meanwhile, saying the song was released in the US sometime during 1995 isn't very useful in this context, so that's why I don't usually add years alone. The only time I do is if I have strong evidence that a song was released somewhere else first (e.g. "Chase the Sun"). ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be combined? In the 1990s, many popular songs were not released commercially in the US (e.g. "Iris"), but impacted radio in lieu of this. A radio release is still a release, and in some cases in the US, the only form of release, so I don't know why it wouldn't be as legitimate as a physical release. It's a release table, whether commercial or not. The tables aren't meant to be exhaustive, but I would agree that providing at least the year if physically released is a good thing. Like ResolutionsPerMinute said, Billboard never published a list of specific release dates for singles like Music Week in the UK or ARIA did in Australia. The only other alternative is AllMusic, which I have issues with because there are many inconsistencies. So that's why there is often an absence of a date for the US. Heartfox (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how beneficial discussing the picture sleeves vs. labels/stickers of 20th-century vinyl single releases is again. AFAICS, certain editors would like to see a picture sleeve but only because.... IMHO a sleeve exists and has marketing appeal and are perceived to have more context than any other portion of any release (same or different). However, recent FFD nominations, most of which I made, have led to favoring available free portions of one release (e.g. a copyright-ineligible side-A label) and deleting non-free portion (e.g. picture sleeve) usually as "textbook WP:NFCC#(whatever number) violation".

If no one here objects or minds, I would like to continue the one-by-one approach on other articles just by FFD-nominating, PROD-ding, or replaceable-tagging. Otherwise, what else do you think I should do besides drafting and starting an RFC? I think NFCC are clear probably because I'm more of a by-the-book type of person, which can irritate some others, and loosening my interpretation of the NFCC isn't easy, especially when many other images have been deleted so far. However, I can see some resistance (and some hesitance?). BTW, I've given up trying to push the nationality/origin angle yet would still seek a free portion of any release that lacked a picture sleeve. --George Ho (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC); edited, 06:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Why restrict it to singles? We should be consistent and include regular album covers in any RFC discussion as well. Tkbrett (✉) 11:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Albums and singles are different media or releases, aren't they? Albums typically have seven, ten, eleven, or twelve songs. (concept album, anyone?) Singles used to carry two tracks before CDs; maxis can carry three or more of the same song, most of them remixes. What else to tell you about albums vs singles? Umm... common sense? Furthermore, a front cover may be typically the sufficient representation of an album. Singles... Could be either the front cover or a label, depending on which releases. Also, before popularity of CDs and digital music, singles were manufactured, packaged, and distributed variously/differently in various regions.

I don't know why album covers should be treated the same as single covers. If you're gonna treat any front cover of any release as no different from each other, be it an album or a single, then go right ahead. Meanwhile, I'm not convinced about including albums in a planned RFC about 20th-century singles (pre-CD or pre-1990s era)... unless I'm pressured to do so? Illmatic, Queens of Noise, Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album) and Led Zeppelin IV should be good examples of why I treat album covers differently from any portion of single releases. Also, those articles also uses one more portion each to further convey the album packaging. Do you need more examples to convince you? George Ho (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think most editors would cast off as absurd the idea the we should ditch album covers when we could include a free image of the central label in its place. But that's the point I'm trying to make: everything you said about why we would should keep album covers is just as well applicable to single picture sleeves. What makes the sleeves of Something New and "Matchbox" so different? Both were designed with promotional reasons in mind. I'm not sure why how many tracks each has would make a difference – eleven versus two in this case. What about EPs like Long Tall Sally, which has four tracks? Where is the cutoff? Tkbrett (✉) 12:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

most editors would cast off as absurd the idea the we should ditch album covers If I include album covers, the RFC would be a failure as well as opposed by consensus, wouldn't it? Well, I traditionally treat albums and singles as different categories, including front covers. Unfortunately, sometimes, singles and albums use (almost) similar covers, and that befuddles readers: Voices Carry and Voices Carry (album); American Pie (song) and American Pie (Don McLean album).

What makes the sleeves of Something New and "Matchbox" so different? I can't be sure whether that's rhetorical or not. If that were a serious question, as I would say, if even list of tracks on front covers still wouldn't differentiate them both, then I don't know what else to tell you about front covers of any medium, like a book or a sheet music... or a DVD. Unsure what to say about Long Tall Sally.

everything you said about why we would should keep album covers is just as well applicable to single picture sleeves. If the following prior FFD discussion don't prove otherwise, then I don't know what else to convince you: one FFD discussion resulted in keeping one back cover and ditching the front; another led to keeping one label and ditching a front cover of another release; another FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a really bad idea, and I'm confused as to why you would want to be nominating single sleeves for deletion in the first place. It's of absolutely no benefit (as far as I can see) to the music project. Has someone identified this issue as particularly problematic – that sleeve art on Wikipedia needs to be replaced by bland, generic label images?

Books have covers, films have posters, and records have sleeves, often picture sleeves. It doesn't seem at all irresponsible to include a picture sleeve in the infobox. Yes, label images appear to be free, so your noms win support from some FFD editors whose focus would seem to be solely on finding a reason to remove non-free images, but I don't think too many editors working on music articles are going to thank you for your contributions. A picture sleeve unquestionably identifies the subject of the article to readers. In years gone by, I can remember GA reviewers wanting to see a Commons image of the artist included in song articles – just for the sake of it, really. Including a picture sleeve, certainly for records from the 1960s or '70s, usually achieves this too, and therefore satisfies editors thinking along those lines.

If generic label images are free (are they?), then yippee – let's have them as well, in a song article's Release section where the section is fairly substantial. Again, I don't think it's right to consider a label an adequate replacement for a picture sleeve. Put it this way: if a book's half-title or title page uses a very standard typeface, doesn't include a publisher's logo or any other actively designed elements, and might therefore be perceived as free, is that the preferred option for the infobox in a book article? JG66 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, congrats for making a reductio ad absurdum on a front cover of any medium—wasn't it? Quoting you: A picture sleeve unquestionably identifies the subject of the article to readers. I wonder whether readers care for which release the front cover belongs to. I always care about that because a caption-less image can be misleading, like the front cover, especially when a description about the front cover is inadequate. Furthermore, a reader would assume that, even with captions, a cover art is also used in other regional releases, which is normally not true.

Originally, I was supposed to go for a national/origin angle (e.g. Australian release sung by an Australian), but one recent FFD discussion changed most of (if not all) that. However, if a front cover makes everyone happy, caption or no caption, then... whatever. I just want a reader to get into past customers' shoes when customers received what they were given in various regions. I think it's a really bad idea You mean one-on-one approach, an RFC, or both? George Ho (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, and I do think what you're suggesting is absurd. (And that's the word used by Tkbrett above as well, because why stop there at singles if you're looking for NFCC#1 violations. LP and book covers, just keep going ...)

"a really bad idea" – both continuing your one-by-one approach and starting an RFC. Can't you find something else to do, something that actually helps the project? This is why I asked whether it's been identified as a serious problem across music articles that we should address, or whether it's an issue that you've inadvertently invented. JG66 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If a misleading caption-less lead image in any song article about a 20th-century song, like other images misidentified as such, isn't a "serious problem" to music-related WikiProjects, then I don't know what to tell you. (I brought that other issue months ago, but no one replied.) And I didn't invent that issue, but whatever. Well, guess uploading front covers without telling readers which releases they belong to isn't that "serious", is it? And if replacing one non-free portion with a free one isn't gonna resolve the issue about misleading caption-less images, then I guess I am running out of options on what else to do about it. George Ho (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about (and I'm not sure you do either). If there's a misleading caption, it should be reworded; if there's a caption-less image in an infobox at a song article, then a caption should be added. End of "serious problem". JG66 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

What happens if the same uploader has done the same thing on every other images on every other song article? I got tired of cleaning up that person's mess on every other article. George Ho (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked through some of my 45s which have picture sleeves (pre-1978 U.S. originals) and could only find one which has a trademark symbol (with "Epic, Marca Reg. T.M.") and another with only the name of the photographer. The rest just show the song titles, artists, and record labels. According to a widely used Cornell University copyright guide, any "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S. [in the period of] 1927 through 1977 [and] Published without a copyright notice" have no copyright and are "In the public domain due to failure to comply with the required formalities".[7]

So, it appears that much of your work may just be replacing one PD image with another. The FURs that accompany WP image uploads are not necessarily correct. Many generic single labels are marked "copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s)", which isn't the case. Similarly, many picture sleeves with no copyright symbols or wording may have also been tagged being copyrighted, when in fact they are not.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm... I don't know. It's still hard to prove, especially when they were published outside the US. Even US copyright of non-US releases/editions would be restored by URAA. George Ho (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

For pre-1978 U.S. material, it's very simple to prove: they either have the required marks and wording or they don't. Even some popular albums don't have them. Hendrix's U.S. Are You Experienced album cover has no such markings and thus it is identified as PD, which is why it is used in several articles without the necessary contextual significance. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If anybody feels that deleting front covers of single releases was a mistake, then please search for past WP:FFD discussions of those images and take them to WP:DRV. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I started the merger discussion, located at Talk:Music of Final Fantasy VIII#Redirect Eyes on Me (Faye Wong song)? (2022). --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pa Mis Muchachas#Requested move 2 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Say So (Doja Cat song)#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 09:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:This Is the Day (The The song)#Requested move 3 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I recently noticed that articles regarding Dua Lipa singles sometimes refer to AllAccess "Cool New Music" tab in the release history tables (e.g. "Hallucinate" or "Be the One"). This tab requires an account on AllAccess to be accessed, and you can search any artists to see their songs. And that sparks a question, since not every song available on "Cool New Music" tab were also featured on "Future Releases" tab, which is considered as a reliable source for US radio format releases, can "Cool New Music" tab be used in articles? Additionally, sometimes the dates provided in this tab does not match up with "Future Releases" dates (e.g. "NDA" was released on July 20, 2021, according to "Future Releases", while "Cool New Music" enlist its release as July 27, 2021) or they do not even match with the song's release dates (e.g. "All Too Well (Taylor's Version)" and "Cardigan" being released one day before their official release, according to this tab of course). And if this tab can be also called reliable for releases, then we should make it clear what should make a promo single or official single release, and what those releases even are. Are they radio impact dates or/and availability for download? Lil-unique1, ResolutionsPerMinute, LOVI33, Heartfox I invite you to participate in this discussion, since you were discussing similar matter earlier. infsai (talkie? UwU) 21:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Infsai: According to this Wikipedia page Heartfox created, AllAccess is okay to use in articles. You should take a quick look at the page and see if it answers any other questions you have. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Yes, I'm aware of this page and its content, but my issue is that can we use songs present at "Cool New Music" tab too - that page only specify that using "Future Releases" tab is okay, but what about "Cool New Music" tab? infsai (talkie? UwU) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Infsai: Oh, I see. I've never been to the site before, so I'll leave this to someone else. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the date a song is posted in the "Cool New Music" tab is a promotional single release while the "impact" date on "Future Releases" is a single release. If a song is posted on "Cool New Music", they can start to chart on the most streamed and downloaded songs by radio stations that appear at the top so that is why I feel that way. I don't know if this is always the case because I know for Adele's most recent album 30, a few songs were tested at US radio before "Oh My God" was chosen as the official single. For that case I have no real opinion but for songs that don't impact upon release, I definitely think it is a promotional single release. LOVI33 00:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The "cool new music" tab lists music that is upcoming, not necessarily new releases. I would advise against using it for release dates. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

So what? Should we refrain from using this tab in the articles? In my opinion, if we'd keep the releases from there as promo-only there would be no problem. Plus they will finally anwser why some songs gained some radio tractions in the US (like "traitor"). But also, you can download songs from this site, so besides listing radio formats in the release history tables, should we enlist that they were also released to digital download? (Good examples of that would be "Happier Than Ever" or "Everything I Wanted") Plus, there are also cover arts of songs there (like "No Body, No Crime"), should we add those to the articles based on this tab? infsai (talkie? UwU) 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Recently I stumbled accross "Hold Up" article, and it used Westdeutscher Rundfunk as a reference for German radio impact date. Is it reliable? Should we expand it to other articles? infsai (talkie? UwU) 23:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There was an RfC about not citing stuff like that. There is no indication the date is set by a label or that they sanctioned them placing it in rotation. Heartfox (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Thanks for claryfication. infsai (talkie? UwU) 17:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

JG66 and I discussed using samples in song articles (see Talk:Levon (song)#Improving this article). As I know, samples have been generally discussed over and over. So far, I've yet to see proposals resolving this matter. Nonetheless, as I figured, a proposal trying to clarify the meaning of contextual significance in terms of using samples would've been disastrous or opposed. I went for one-on-one approach continuously until I was told to take this matter to a more central discussion. The matter may affect song articles, but it also affects how NFCC is interpreted. For location of an RfC discussion, I'd lean toward either WP:VPP or WT:NFC, but JG66 suggested this project talk page or WT:WPMUSIC. For a question, here are my suggestions:

• "Shall a non-free sample be used to identify a song, even without commentary?"
• "is using a non-free sample to identify a song (especially in a song article) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither?"

This is for drafting/brainstorming. --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a good topic for an RfC. For the sake of simplicity, I would suggest limiting the scope to just song articles. Other cases (e.g. using a song sample to identify a genre in the article about that genre) come up less often, and involve more complicated points about replaceability. I would suggest that the RfC statement include a link to WP:NFC#CS, since that has the relevant policy verbiage about using non-free content to identify the subject of an article, as a way to meet the contextual significance criterion. My suggested wording would be something like: "Is it generally acceptable to include a non-free sample of a song in an article about that song for the purposes of identification, per WP:NFC#CS?" Colin M (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've seen "commentary" being often brought up. I think about dividing votes into "Acceptable with commentary", "Acceptable without commentary", "Unacceptable without commentary", "Unacceptable even with commentary", "Neither", and "Other". @Colin M: BTW, at which location do you think the discussion shall occur? --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think everyone would agree that a sample would be acceptable if it's the subject of sourced commentary, based on a plain reading of the first criterion at WP:NFC#CS. To me, the more interesting question is whether the second criterion (identification) can apply. I don't have a strong opinion about where the RfC should take place. Colin M (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost forgot: I thought about asking about which acceptable portion of a song to typically use for identification. Is the question necessary for the RFC discussion? --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's going to be hard to give a general answer to this question, and it should be a matter of editorial judgement. I would suggest setting it aside for now as an orthogonal matter. Colin M (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Worthy of initiating RfC. I would favor, "Commentary strongly preferred, but acceptable without." - JGabbard (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

At where do you think shall the RFC discussion occur? --George Ho (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wherever the most input can be obtained. - JGabbard (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Since this involves interpretation and possible changes to/clarification of a WP guideline, the guideline talk page (WT:NFC) would be more appropriate than here or WT:WPMUSIC. WP:VPP gets the most traffic, but may be better for broader WP issues. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WT:NFC seemed like the choice to me as well, with notices posted here and at other related WikiProjects to help draw attention. Tkbrett (✉) 13:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I started the RFC discussion about using non-free samples in song articles. Your input there is welcome. Link: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72#RfC: Using samples to identify songs in song articles --George Ho (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:New Love#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding a passage in the Every Breath You Take article regarding the piano part in the song. Feedback is welcome at Talk:Every Breath You Take § Piano part, revisited. isaacl (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Torn (Ednaswap song)#Requested move 11 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

P.S. the file is called "anathem" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.96.70 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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

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

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

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

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

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

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

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

Example(s): [8], [9], [10], [11]

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

Yeah, like I mentioned in the FAC, it seems to be WP:linkrot, and since there are no usable archived versions of those sites, my best suggestion is to contact the organisation and notify them of the issue, which they may have overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconding this. The pages aren't totally illegible but it is very unclear what information they're meant to convey at first glance (or even if they're conveying all the needed information). If someone can tell the org to fix their website that'd be the easiest solution. I'm not 100% that it's quite bad enough to deprecate, but I can understand why that's the conclusion other editors would come to. Personally I would hold off on making the deprecation move for a bit to see how quickly the IFPI responds to messages. If they respond and the fix is made quickly then there's the problem solved, but if it goes a month or more without correction then I don't know if we have a choice. QuietHere (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem? Eurohunter (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

According to Mike above, the links lack context and are not intelligible as official certifications. I am trying to find the consensus.--NØ 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What I said in the FAC was Using Google Translate the page says "Submitted by maf on Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:11 Tue, 10/09/2018 - 12:00 TrackMeghan TrainorNoSony MusicGuld2018-SD373223206". I accept that Guld means Gold, but how does this support a gold certification? If anything it looks more like a submission of something by an external user. There's no context to indicate something like "Anything listed on this page has an official Danish gold certification". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see why that isn't a safe assumption. If you know what the IFPI is and know this is a national branch of that org then what else would you think they're referring to? Is there any other context where that website might use terms like "gold" and platinum" that it could be confused with? QuietHere (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it's an assumption. For all I know that page is a listing of submissions by association members for consideration for gold certification, and in fact the word "submitted" makes me think that's more likely. I did try to navigate around the site to see if I could reach that page from another page which made it clear what I was looking at -- that would have been enough to convince me. But I don't speak Danish and I wasn't able to find a way to get to that page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Y'know what, that's fair enough. I stand by my/FunkMonk's above point of "make contact and hold off on drastic measures for the moment" but I see your stance makes sense and won't be bothered by the movie being made if necesary based on this logic. QuietHere (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, no need for any action now, at least until someone tries contacting the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: How is this lack of context? How is this different than any other certifications database? Do you mean someone can add reference for Gold entry instead of Platinum? Eurohunter (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

idk, it looks fine to me. It was other people who took issue with it at my FAC.--NØ 13:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is if you click on the link, nothing in it supports anything being said in the articles it's used in, it's basically an empty page, which is obviously iffy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: So add certref? Eurohunter (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think I have an answer. This link should take you to a listing page that clearly shows the certification status for Meghan Trainor's "No", which was the article where this question came up. It's not a stable link because new certs will be added to the front of the list, which will change the page number. I think an archived (and hence stable) version of this page would be better than the pages that are currently being linked to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, which hopefully puts the matter to rest.--NØ 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Why even would you like to use this link? Do you mean it's problem with automatically generated references by Template:Certification Table Top? Eurohunter (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: look at the links given as examples at the top of this section. Those pages are broken and not conveniently legible. That is the concern. QuietHere (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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

As WP:NSONGS has recently changed, I will quote the start of it, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." In other words, charting is not a good criteria for determining the notability of a song. Many non-charting songs are notable because of their coverage., while I have seen chart-topping songs get no coverage.

I looked at (and made some improvements) to the first song. It has many references. I am not convinced that they are all about the song itself. As the title track, it might be difficult to distinguish coverage between the two, but I am sure you checked them all and did WP:BEFORE so those nominations should close without issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who made the change to that definition of a notable song, or on what basis. It seems very flawed to me. The number of articles referencing a song is a subjective metric, whereas chart rankings, especially Billboard charts, are objective measures of how many people hear that song. As objectivity is important to Wikipedia, basing notability on a few articles rather than Billboard metrics is just incorrect. Is there another talk page where this change was decided in that I could read any reasoning? Prime624 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

What you're describing is exactly why it was changed. NSONG was not meant to allow for an article for any old song that ever charted. You still need third party sources to write an article around. NSONGS still mentions charting in its intended means, if you read the whole thing - charting is an indicator that it may be notable. As in, it's a good sign. But not a guarantee. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can be a third party source on a song though. It is a purely subjective test of notability. I'm not saying billboard charts need to be the sole indicator of a notable song. But charts should be weighed more heavily than articles, since the former is objective and the latter is subjective. Prime624 (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No, not true. Only certain sources are deemed usable on Wikipedia. WP:RSMUSIC is a good example of what is usable, while WP:NOTRSMUSIC is an example of stuff to stay away from. It's not exhaustive by any means, but it's good guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Hi all, there's a discussion about the above topic at Talk:Positions_(album)#Inclusion_of_Covid_in_the_lead. Would appreciate some other comments from other editors, without prejudice. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of songfacts.com as a source in articles. If you would like to join the discussion, please contribute here. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What about independent sources in this case? Eurohunter (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is always an issue with lists of chart positions. The article you linked to has the Joel Whitburn books in the references, which are really the only semi-independent reliable sources that are available for Billboard charts. Richard3120 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I started pre-RfC (brainstorming) discussion about (using) song samples and/or cover arts at this location: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72#Another pre-RfC about song samples or cover arts. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Opened a discussion about merging Pony (dance) into "Pony Time", please give it a look. Thanks! QuietHere (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is in reference to an article I contributed some time ago on the John Sebastian song Darlin' Be Home Soon. Firstly, in the past, when I have written a song article I have always assumed that the article is about the song, and not about a particular version of that song - unless, of course, there were multiple versions of a song notable enough to require their own articles. I was also in the habit of including a list of covers or other versions of the song, restricted to the earliest release (if that was not the most popular), covers by notable artists, and versions which charted. It seems to me that these would be interesting and notable enough facts about the song to include at least a line about them. However, I have been told that this is inappropriate, that only cover versions which essentially meet the criteria for their own articles should be included? Also, I have been told that, even if we did have a list of cover versions in an article, their existence on a particular album would need to be referenced in the article. Perhaps it is a bit lazy, but I had thought that, for mere existence, relying on the album article (linked in most circumstances) would be sufficient. Track listings seem to be rarely referenced even in the album articles, and I'm not honestly sure they need to be in most cases. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you were correctly told to follow WP:COVERSONG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

As User:Sergecross73 correctly stated, WP:COVERSONG should be adhered to. I only add my comment because you seemed to not believe other people who have pointed this out. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I give, I give! It honestly doesn't make much sense to me unless one looks at the articles as being strictly about a particular recording of a song instead of being about the song itself, which of course is the case for many articles about older standards and folk ballads (see for instance The Whistling Gypsy.) But if that's the way things are being done, I'll do it that way.Brianyoumans (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It may seem less clear to you since you seem to be working more on obscure classics and "older standards" as you say. (No judgement - I prefer covering often-overlooked music myself, though I personally focus more on rock music.) But the point of COVERSONG may become more clear to you in the context of more modern music. The problem is, we live in a time, due to advances in technology and the internet, where its relatively easy for someone to record a cover song, and upload it to the internet and music streaming services. If we just allowed every single cover song you can list, then, for example, a hit song from an artist like Foo Fighters or Taylor Swift from five years ago would just have tens and hundreds of examples, many of them entirely insignificant covers from the likes of "FrankBeans64", who's really just a teenager in their parents basement trying to promote his YouTube channel with seven followers. And much of the time additions would be more about that - self-promotion - than documenting noteworthy aspects of a song. The point is, you've got to draw the line somewhere...and while it may be stricter than you like, COVERSONG represents where the consensus fell on that one. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that we can't be mentioning every YouTube cover. That's why at some point, perhaps many years ago, I picked up the criteria I have been using - mostly, just covers by notable artists, plus charting covers and the first recording.Brianyoumans (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So.... just so I understand clearly... Doctorhawkes, you just eliminated some but not all of the covers listed in the Darlin' Be Home Soon article. What was the logic behind leaving some? From what I have been told, shouldn't that whole section just go away?Brianyoumans (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Three of the remaining four charted, so meet WP:COVERSONG's criteria for inclusion. The Joe Cocker I suspect MAY have enough independent coverage if we search. Doctorhawkes (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but by my reading of them neither WP:COVERSONG nor WP:NSONGS says anything about charting anymore, so... really they should all be removed unless independent coverage can be found? Brianyoumans (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

True. As it says, charting is an indication it MAY be notable. I certainly wouldn't object if someone else removed them, but I would search for sources before I removed. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Which was really the intent of NSONGS all along, little has changed. Charting is a good sign it may be notable, but it's not a sure thing or a confirmation. If one truly couldn't find any third party reliable source coverage, those cover versions could be removed. But the belief is generally, that if the song was popular enough to chart on a major chart, it was probably popular enough to get a few sources written about it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Special (Lizzo album)#"Grrrls" single status, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

An editor has requested for The Cheap Seats to be moved to The Cheap Seats (song). Since you had some involvement with The Cheap Seats, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Happily888 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Don't Blame Me (song)#Requested move 25 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 14:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Bam Thwok for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the above GAR. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to enquire if the genre field on top of Pitchfork song reviews is reliable to source the genres in song infoboxes. They classified "To Be Loved" by Adele as "Pop/R&B" which seemed a bit weird to me (it's really a soul song), a concern Oroborvs shared as well. Upon doing further research it seems they classify all her songs as the same genre ([12], [13], [14]). Have there been any discussions about this before?--NØ 14:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If there hasn't been a discussion about this (I'm not aware of one off-hand) then I'm glad it's come up now. This is something I've thought about before. As far as I can tell, those "genre" tags are just general categories for their own sorting purposes/navigation for readers, and not strictly a statement of a genre label. They are all overly broad ("Electronic", for example, covers a broad base including psych-funk, house and big beat, and even a hip hop album (categorised as "electronic/rap"). That's quite the variety, and that's just a handful of examples I could find on short notice. If you ask me, those categories could maybe be useful as a last resort (though if they are consistently inaccurate like your "To Be Loved" example then that's a no), but I would ignore them in favor of what can be found in prose. QuietHere (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A standard similar to the one you lay out here is in place for WP:ALLMUSIC. That standard allows for sourcing genres from the prose of a song or album review, but discounts those listed in the sidebar. I believe in the case of AllMusic, the sidebar listings are user-submitted, while in the case of Pitchfork they are used by the website for categorization. The comparison isn't exact, but I think it's a helpful one. Tkbrett (✉) 15:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of the AllMusic standard specifically, though again I don't know if this means that those category genres should be entirely deprecated or just, as I said above, a last resort if nothing more specific is available. Depends on their accuracy (Worth noting that "To Be Loved" does use those exact genres sourced to both Pitchfork and the Sydney Morning Herald; @MaranoFan, I'm curious where you get "it's really a soul song" from) since I believe the AM standard was started from editors noticing clear inaccuracies in the sidebar genres. QuietHere (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

QuietHere, that's just me going off of what songs similar to this are classified as by other sources.--NØ 15:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. Always go off prose and what the reviewer says. These categories at the top are for categorisation rather than an accurate reflection of what the song is. Its akin to saying just because a song charted on X chart, its X genre. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

To get a lasting standard established (like the one for WP:ALLMUSIC), you should open up a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Tkbrett (✉) 18:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tkbrett shouldn't it go here instead since the note would be appearing at WP:RSMUSIC? QuietHere (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

QuietHere, the WP:ALLMUSIC discussion arose after a ton of discussion over at the RSN, which is why I figured it ought to happen over there. If it happens here, I don't think it will end up on the list of perennial sources for easy reference later. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Both fair points. Just wanted to be sure. Will make the post now. QuietHere (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pitchfork genre categories QuietHere (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:To Be Loved (Adele song)#Requested move 13 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 05:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I may be barking up the wrong tree but has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a real bias against creating articles for hit singles by British grime/drill/bassline artists. For example this year on the List of UK top-ten singles in 2022 article, other than the non singles by Harry Styles and Drake (which will probably get articles eventually), the only new songs without an article are IFTK, Pump 101 amd BMW. It was a similar story last year - Money Talks, Commitment Issues, Titanium, Verdansk, In the Fire, Wasted, Obsessed with You, Coming for You Flowers (Say My Name) and Overseas.

It would have been more but I had to make "Bringing It Back", the only exception outside these genres was Mimi Webb's "Good Without", a big hit with lots of coverage that went article-less for months (strange for a song that came big from TikTok which usually get an article very quickly). Just asking for a bit of feedback on this - I have always been of the mind that a top 10 position is worthy of an article, and it seems a bit of a coincidence that the similar genres from American artists usually get articles about songs very quickly, even beyond the bigger names like Drake. 03md 10:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed this, particularly in the cases of ArrDee and Central Cee ("Obsessed with You" is basically a stub with just chart info). I agree that a top-ten song (maybe even top-twenty) deserves an article. I don't think it's just a British grime/drill/bassline music problem – if you at the yearly lists of Billboard and UK top-ten singles over the past fifty years, you will see that there are articles for nearly all the Billboard song articles, whereas the same is not true for the UK. In terms of the lack of British grime, etc song articles, I just put it down to the fact that many of these songs don't become popular in America where (I assume) the majority of articles are created. DPUH (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's bias... it's simply that there aren't the editors on Wikipedia interested enough in this genre of music to create the articles. Richard3120 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I also think that Grime artists don't tend to get as much coverage. There are tonnes of Pop/R&B blogs like Digital Spy, Muumuse, Rap-Up. Grime and Drill are very UK centric and they just don't get the same coverage - they're less likely to appear and perform on TV, give interviews or have big budget music videos that get spoken about. Richard is right, there doesn't appear to be an abundant community of editors interested in writing about the topics either. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

We divide tables by year of highest peaks so if song charted in 2007-2009 but peaked in 2008 we list this country only to 2008 table and the other countries to 2009 table if song peaked in 2009 in that country. @ResolutionsPerMinute: Told that is ridicolours and redundant. Eurohunter (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It is. Why create two separate tables for two consecutive years? Three-plus non-consecutive years, sure, but if we created tables for each year a song peaked in a different country, there'd be five different tables on "To the Moon and Back", which is overkill. A chart performance section could easily clear up any ambiguity. Also, just to clue everyone in on what exactly is going on, this issue began with an edit I made on All I Ever Wanted. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI - you may wish to get involved in the above conversation. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Noticed a usage of the template on Sunday Best (Surfaces song) where the latter chronology is showing that the single was rereleased a year after its initial drop. This can be seen in the duo's discography section, but isn't clearly marked as such on the song article which lead me to taking a minute to figure out what it was there for. Is this use of extra chron standard, and if so is there a good way for marking it to be clear that one is the initial release and the other is the reissue? The reissue is definitely notable because all the song's charting success/certifications came afterward (although the article also reads like it might've just been a radio release and not necessarily a new single which might throw all of this out), so I can see the necessity of both timelines, just think it'd help to have them both labeled more clearly. QuietHere (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)