Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

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

August Rigo link please[edit]

Hello, can we link August Rigo to his wikipedia page? He wrote this song as well as the new song Tough Love on Chris Brown's Heartbreak on a Full Moon album.

Opinions of use of rowspans on song articles?[edit]

Asking here as many articles for songs use rowspans and there is some overlap with editors of general music articles. After a long, at times far off-topic and mudslinging discussion at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography, several users are indicating that they are now going to seek modification of WP:ACCESS, a guideline, to make clear that rowspans should not be used in most cases on music articles, because it is the opinion of said editors that music-related WikiProjects have lagged behind the rest of Wikipedia in regards to accessibility for visually-impaired readers. What do you all think of this proposed change to not use rowspans in most cases? I and another editor were called "just as bad as racists and homophobes" by one particularly worked-up user for not agreeing with the removal of rowspans—it's my guess most here would be bestowed such a comparison if they disagree by those who made Sabrina Carpenter discography their battleground for this change. It mostly affects using rowspans for columns not on the left-hand side of a page (mostly the "Album" column on discographies). No need to ping me, just seeking the opinions of those here because it's a more active music WikiProject than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies and even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Ss112 00:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No worse than the sports articles I've seen (Cristiano Ronaldo#Career statistics, but other sports seem to be a bit better). I don't have a screen reader so I can't confirm that the formatting without the rowspans is better or worse (and just because one screen reader claims it's no different doesn't mean all screen readers will make the same claim). I trust that the folks at ACCESS will be able to shed light on this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Please be careful not to WP:CANVASS in the future (neutrality of statement) as well as not to spread the same discussion to multiple places. --Izno (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: Excuse me? I'm not canvassing. I know what it is; I don't need to be linked or reminded. I am asking for impartial opinions from music editors on if it becomes the case that rowspans are going to become targeted. That is not the same topic or discussion. I want editors to reply here, and I did not ask people to comment at the other talk page—I pointed out the origin only and voiced my opinion of that situation, which I am allowed to do because I'm not canvassing. Sabrina Carpenter's discography talk page is not the centre of all discussions relating to use of rowspans and I am absolutely allowed to ask elsewhere for opinions. Please don't assume, misconstrue my intentions or cast aspersions on what I'm asking here because of what happened elsewhere. Thank you. Ss112 06:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"It is the opinion that the music projects have lagged behind" is not neutral language. It is charged language to call out specific language by a "particularly worked-up user". I could go on with the rest of your comment here. Yes, this is essentially canvassing/WP:FORUMSHOPping and self-admitted deliberately splitting a discussion. Canvassing has little to do with intention judgement--it is entirely about the effects of where and how you talk about a subject elsewhere. As I said earlier, be careful in the future. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: Great, except that the user who said "lagged behind" is not the user who insulted me. I started a separate discussion from what is being discussed at that discography. The discussion does not have to be kept there. I don't agree with your characterisation of what I've attempted to ask here, and you're essentially just sidetracking the discussion. Please assume good faith in future. Thanks. Ss112 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ariana Grande song title stylizations[edit]

Its clearly verifiable that the song titles for Ariana Grande's album Sweetener are all lowercased (except God Is a Woman which is sentence cased) on every music service Spotify, iTunes, YouTube. But Woodensuperman has decided (with no sources or consensus to back him up) that these song title stylizations are "absolute nonsense" and has removed them from several articles. Since this is more or less a discussion about the stylization convention of song articles in general and not just these specific articles, I think this is the appropriate venue to further this discussion and get third party opinions. I see no reason to deprive people of this clearly correct information about how these song titles are stylized.--NØ 10:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It has long been common practice on albums and singles track listings to drop a cap on the title, or list the songs all in caps, etc. It is such a common thing to happen, it's not worth mentioning and we certainly don't need to bring attention to such a minor style point in the lede. We don't do that with With the Beatles or "Beetlebum", and we don't need to do that here. You also seem to be ignoring the artwork for these songs which does not even back up your claim File:Ariana Grande No Tears Left to Cry.png, File:God Is a Woman single cover.png. --woodensuperman 10:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I always remove notes like this too. I never understand why people feel compelled to add them. It serves no purpose. Why do we need to explain such simple “stylizations” to the reader? Are we to believe that they’re going to not recognize that “No Tears Left to Cry” and “no tears left to cry” as the same song? People can figure out this sort of thing on their own. Sergecross73 msg me 11:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies but I don't agree with this argument? People can probably also figure out that Black Pink is the same band as BLACKPINK and GetItRight is the same song as "#GETITRIGHT" but that still doesn't sound like a valid reason to remove a stylization from Wikipedia. Its only a disservice to readers imo. Just because people "may know it" doesn't mean Wikipedia should not be providing information about that stylization to people who do not know it. It so obviously makes no positive difference but can easily make a negative one, this argument really sounds like a regurgitated version of WP:IDLI.--NØ 13:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You’ve claimed it’s a “disservice” to omit it, but what exactly is the service provided by adding it? You just literally admitted it “makes no positive difference”. Then what is the significance here? Why is it important for this to be be pointed out to the reader? And please assume good faith - no one has remotely cited liking or not liking it. It’s fine if you disagree, but don’t misrepresent other’s arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW pasting here my edit summary earlier: ""just like all the songs from the album" gives an indication how common this is, furthermore artwork shows it is not exclusively so styled. Removed as non-noteworthy trivia". It's very common for marketing to include typographical tweaks such as reversed letters, upside-down letters, all caps, random caps et cetera ad nauseam. Wikipedia does not document all these weird and wonderful attempts to catch your eye. All lower case is at the banal end of the scale. In this particular case we can judge the importance the creators themselves place upon it by the fact it isn't even consistently applied. What font is it? Is it bold? Superscript? Italic? It doesn't matter, it adds no value to the article, it's trivia. Captainllama (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
MOS:TMSTYLE already settled this issue with it is conventional to give the normal English spelling in the lead section, followed by a note, such as "(stylized as ...). --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it applies in this case, firstly because it's not a trademark, and secondly, it is such common practice to decapitalize songs on tracklistings, etc., it doesn't really count as stylization, so it ends up being trivial and unnecessary clutter. And in a lot of the cases above in question here, it's not even backed up by the artwork for the single, so usage isn't even consistent by the artist (Look at No Tears Left to Cry for example). --woodensuperman 11:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly this. It’s acceptable to make notes about certain stylixations, sure. But situations like this are too mundane and self-explanatory to spell out for the reader. Sergecross73 msg me 11:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
We do not mimic non-standard stylization in titles and most other situations per [[MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects]], [[MOS:LCITEMS]] etc. The only real exceptions are proper names (k.d. lang) and In contexts where the case of symbols is significant (mathematic formulas). I have myself corrected film, TV series, and TV episode titles improperly stylized in this way, I don't see why non-stylization wouldn't apply to song titles.— TAnthonyTalk 15:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
As noted, being all in lower-case letters is so common it is unnecessary to point it out. And we would have to apply it to so many song and album articles – apart from With the Beatles mentioned above, it would also apply to Out of Our Heads, Bryter Layter, Like a Virgin, The Last Broadcast, etc. etc... Richard3120 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the [L|l]ang case needs to be revisited. The number of independent reliable sources, especially outside of entertainment journalism, that still do "lang" has dropped markedly over the last decade.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh christ, we're getting "(stylized in all caps)" too!!! - See these Meghan Trainor songs [1][2][3]. --woodensuperman 16:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • NO. The "stylized as..." thing is something we only occasionally do for actual trademarks, and only "strong marks" at that, where we think there could conceivably be a WP:RECOGNIZABILITY problem ("Am I really at the right article?") We could and should probably remove such comments from about 85% of the places where they've been inserted. The idea of adding them to parrot album/single cover typography is absurd. It's patently unencyclopedic and simply an attempt to WP:GAME around MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and MOS:TM, and WP:OFFICIALNAME, and MOS:TITLES, (etc.) all at once. Anyone familiar with industrial and other genres that play with typography a lot will know how poor an idea this is. You'll find that even most of the music press, despite being more likely than any other genre of nonfiction to try to mimic stylization of band and album names, rarely does so for font effects on song titles to match the liner notes. The first rule at MOS:CAPS is to not do strange things with letter case except in an instance where independent sources do so with near-total uniformity.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC); rev'd. 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t care how the songs are styled by the artist... I do care how they are styled in sources that are independent of the artist. Especially high quality sources. If they lower case, so should we. If they uppercase, so should we. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you think we shouldn't care about the multiple platforms the songs are available (ALL of which, stylized all songs in the album in lowercase, except for R.E.M. and Giaw, as seen on iTunes, Spotify, Tidal and YouTube), we should at least consider what these reliable, notable sites are saying then (as seen here, here, here, here, here, here and here). The fact that a lot of artists do it nowadays, doesn't mean we shouldn't point it out. And if the biggest issue is that in some sources the songs aren't styled as lowercase, perhaps we should add the word "sometimes" before the (stylized as...). — Artmanha (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
"The titles for the 15 songs on her album are all written in lower case" is newsworthy now is it? Yawn. Is that the most interesting thing someone could say about the album? I don't expect any reviewer ever wrote that all the tracks on the Manic Street Preachers' The Holy Bible were written in upper case. They probably didn't bother to mention that the Rs are backwards, come to that. Styling in upper or lower or sentence case is such a non-issue when it comes to track listings, it is not worth a mention. --woodensuperman 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
What you say by “it is not worth a mention” you are basically saying ‘’we shouldn’t add it because you don’t want it”. That can be backed by you not having an actual argument, only trying to discredit one of the MANY sources I brought. Just because it’s not important to YOU, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be added. — Artmanha (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is that it such a common practice, it's not noteworthy. SMcCandlish spells it out better above. --woodensuperman 15:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, we are not discussing the article titles, that, I believe, is consensual. What I'm saying is, dispite being a "common practice", we SHOULD add it because it's the way the artist chose to display their songs, otherwise it would be just like Ariana's previous works. I don't think we should not add it because some users dislike it, it's not how Wikipedia works. All Wikipedia information can be found somewhere else, so just because it's "such a common practice", it's not an argument to why we shouldn't add. I showed reliable and notable sources (whether one likes the reviewer/journalist or not, it's still notable) explicitly referring the songs as being lowercase, so I don't see a reason why we shouldn't add it. Plus, I brought up a peaceful solution you seem to have completely ignored: we should put (sometimes stylized as...) as a middle ground for the users claiming not all places stylized the songs in lowercase. Please consider is a form of trying to reach consensus. — Artmanha (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
"Sometimes stylized as" completely missed the point. Only if something is consistently styled in a certain way could there ever be any argument for mentioning it. If sometimes it is styled one way and sometimes another, why bother? To continue my Manic Street Preachers example - have a look at "Revol" (song). Lowercase on the single, uppercase with a backward "R" on the album. So should we really explain all these minor typographical stylings in the lede? --woodensuperman 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
If the stylizations dont require any note on the grounds for recognizability, and don’t particularly represent anything, then there’s no point in pointing them out. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
How does one decide what "dont require any note on the grounds for recognizability"? Because the way I see it, it is of extreme importance since it's the way the song is available on the multiple music platforms. And as for the Revol song, I think you are misinterpretating the discussion. We are not discussing the song stylization based on the artwork, otherwise "Imagine" should be stylized in Chinese, as displays the artwork. The Revol song is styled differently only on the artwork. Lastly, so much for trying to reach a consensus amongst fellow wikipedians. — Artmanha (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Whether something is written in sentence case, lowercase, uppercase, etc, etc, each is instantly recognizable. Therefore we don't need an explanatory note to show that someone is at the correct article, as it is self evident. As far as consensus goes, I'd say we've reached it. --woodensuperman 16:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is not imposing your will. Please be aware of it. I disagree with you, we don't put information on Wikipedia only so readers can distinguish articles. As for your "argument" you try to say that if we didn't add a certain information in an article, why should we put in this other article", which doesn't respect WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Artmanha (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Consensus had already been formed in the preceding discussion. --woodensuperman 16:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You wish. But "the preceding discussion" is still ongoing, in case you didn't notice. And no consensus has been formed, you are just trying to impose your will for the lack of arguments. Please don't do that. — Artmanha (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
See my prior above comments to explain what I mean about not needing to point out things like this for recognizability. There’s no reason to point out that “No Tears” also goes by “no tears”. No one would assume they are different songs. The opposite would be something like noting that Deadmau5 equates to/is pronunced as “Dead Mouse”. That’s worth noting. It’s not a common spelling or readily apparent to the reader outside of fans. That note helps provide recognizability and meaning to the reader. Noting that someone doesn’t capitalize words does nothing like that. That’s the point I was trying to make. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Woodensuperman just removed song title stylisations from a dozen unrelated articles citing this discussion (which hasn’t even concluded) as the reason. [4] Please read up on Wikipedia’s policy about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also, if you do feel that there is consensus, then wait for someone else to make the changes instead of restoring your own edits that have been reverted in the past. Also, at least two users (me and Artmanha) agree that the stylisations shouldn’t be removed so “consensus” hasn’t been reached.—NØ 20:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, that’s a bit misleading. Artmanha didn’t comment until today, and the discussion had been pretty stale for the last week. Before today, no one had really supported your stance. So, looking at this discussion before today, it’s be pretty easy to decipher a pretty basic consensus here. Even today, I’d say there’s a weak consensus against inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think (non-admin) people should enforce their favorite consensus in a discussion which is still getting replies, some of which are against removal. Looking at the above discussion I also believe Gonnym and Blueboar supported not removing them. This discussion was literally started about Woodensuperman removing stylizations without any discussion so they should have waited for an uninvolved party to go ahead and restore the changes when an actual "consensus" was reached. 5 people saying the stylizations should be removed, and 4 saying it should be kept doesn't look like a clear consensus to me and the discussion would benefit from continuing for a little longer.--NØ 05:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
There was never an active consensus supporting its inclusion either, people like yourself just started adding it in. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No? I wasn't the one who "added it in" (at least in the Ariana articles). They were already present and can be reliably sourced from every music platform the songs are available to stream or purchase on. WS removed them without any discussion and was reverted, so per the WP:BRD cycle they're supposed to wait for this discussion to conclude before they restore it.--NØ 15:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Conversely, one could say they were boldly added in the first place, and their removal was the revert step of BRD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone could say that but they would be wrong. Removal of a reliably sourced stylization that had been in the article for months is clearly the bold edit in this instance.--NØ 17:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Um, "the multiple platforms the songs are available" at are not WP:INDY or RS, they're simply marketing. They're sales databases of products that use the stylization that was supplied by the creators of the works, most of it imported automatically by software, and the rest entered by under-paid data entry people who do not care and who have little oversight. The stylization they provide is primary sourcing; taken as works on their own, things like Amazon are very, very weak tertiary sourcing (no one with expertise or editorial judgement is reviewing what goes into them).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't claim those platforms are independent sources though. Primary sources are good enough for song names and stylizations. I'm sure you're not trying to say iTunes and Spotify are not reliable sources for a song stylization because that wouldn't make sense.. They're by far the best sources one could use to see how a song name is written since its the record label itself that uploads songs on there. This is a total straw man argument to the point I was actually making.--NØ 15:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I would probably expect it to be mentioned in the track listing section of the album if one or more sources has noted that, though it's not really all that important. I would like to express no opinion on whether it should be included in articles about the songs/singles, although I'm leaning towards also including it in those articles if at least one relevant source considers that worth mentioning. Jc86035 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel like whether or not a song title is all uppercase or all lowercase, or even a certain way shouldn't be made into a big issue like this. The Sweetener songs were doing fine for months, but if it's necessary... I feel that the stylization should be mentioned simply because if that's how the artist/their team wanted it to be, it's worth noting. The titles are ALL lowercased (with the exception of R.E.M, and Giaw) on various digital and streaming sites like iTunes, Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube entries.. the list goes on. And artwork along with whether or not it's in all caps in a lyric video shouldn't be mentioned, those are also stylized in a specific font which may not support lowercase letters. Multiple sources and articles have appreciated the lowercase stylization while others have disregarded it; it's all a matter of choice on behalf of the news/gossip sites. Personally, I dont care if a second-hand article from Rolling Stone mag disregards the styilization, I care about sources that are independent of the artist such as iTunes or Spotify, which are even more credible. I also agree with what one user said about how Black Pink specifically styilizes their name as BLACKPINK and GetItRight is the same song as "#GETITRIGHT". Just because a handful of users do not believe it's important doesn't mean it isn't there. GogoGrande (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can see the point in pointing out the use of a # sign - that actually means something. It signifies a use in social media like Twitter. It gives additional context to the song. But what’s the meaning in writing a song title without any caps? Is that supposed to signify something? If it’s to give some sort of not-readily-apparent meaning to the song title? If so, and sources cover it, then I get it. Add it. But so far I haven’t noticed anyone give such an explanation. But if there’s no actual message to convey to the reader, then there’s no point. But that’s the last I’ll comment on this. There’s more important and constructive things to be dealt with in building this encyclopedia than whether or not we should clutter up intros of pop music articles with info readily apparent to anyone with basic reading comprehension. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Single release date[edit]

Is a reliable source for the statement that "Death of a Bachelor" was released to radio in December 2016 (and that this constitutes its release date as a single), and is its release to radio the best date to say it was released as a single? The song's music video was released in December 2015 and the song itself peaked on the Billboard 100 in November 2015. Panic! at the Disco discography did not list it as a single until 7 October 2017, when it was added by BlaccCrab. Multiple editors have changed the infobox release date to 2015. Jc86035 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Cover Songs[edit]

I don't want to get into a long discussion about this, so if no one agrees with me, then I'll drop the matter quickly. But I just wanted to mention that I more or less agree with the concerns raised by Carptrash in this discussion from a few months ago. It seems like it would be reasonable enough to include all of the covers recorded by notable artists in a table of some sort, at least with regards to songs that have been copyrighted (a much stricter criteria would, of course, have to be used for songs in the public domain). I recognize that certain songs, like "Yesterday", pose a unique problem, and I wouldn't advocate for mentioning all 2,000+ covers in that particular case. But perhaps a happy medium of some sort could be reached? --Jpcase (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am doing (at the receiving end) eye surgery right now and very little work here but it it nice to see this. If no one shows up saying otherwise let's considerer it a done deal. Carptrash (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Actual informative tables that can be nicely put into hide-able sections are a good place to go with this. I think my primary objection is to great big lists of unannotated blue links. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 06:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:MOSCOLLAPSE. If you intend to present the information in only one place, you should not collapse it. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm grasping at straws for a middle place; generally, I delete those lists from articles about standards on sight. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I am at a loss to see how a list of who have recorded a song could pass GNG. So few song articles have anything about the song yet we have a request to add what is in essence, trivia. A single referenced paragraph (written and not a list, box or other contraption) to show the depth and width of recordings made, that a folk song has been recorded as a heavy metal song which additionally shows the importance of the song. Otherwise we finish up with abominations like List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells" which serves no purpose but massage the egos of the editors who have taken ownership of the main article and the list. The proposal would also fail WP:NSONGS --Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
And all these covers then end up in the navboxes too... --woodensuperman 12:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the GNG and NSONGS are both meant to be used when determining whether a topic is notable enough for a standalone article; I don't believe that those guidelines are meant to be used when determining whether an individual fact is notable enough to be mentioned within an article. Because I'm not talking about creating separate, standalone articles for each individual cover version of a given song, I'm not sure that either of those guidelines are meant to be applicable here.
What I'm advocating for is creating a table that could list all of the cover versions that notable artists have recorded of a given song and then placing that table within the existing article about the song (as jpgordon mentioned, the table could even be collapsible). And again, I would absolutely want to see stricter standards used when dealing with public domain songs - so I of course wouldn't want to see an article for a song like "Jingle Bells" mention every single notable artist who's ever recorded it. --Jpcase (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. I think that logic applies here too: that a notable artist has recorded a version of a song does not make that version of the song, on its own, notable. My own criterion would be "is the song worthy of mention in the singer's article?" --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, notability isn't inherited, but WP:NOTINHERITED is another guideline about whether or not topics are notable enough to receive their own standalone articles; to my knowledge, NOTINHERITED isn't meant to be used when determining whether a fact is notable enough to be mentioned within an article.
That said, your criterion is reasonable enough - it seems too strict to me, but I can understand where you're coming from. Personally, I just don't feel that readers of Wikipedia will come away with a full understanding a song's legacy, unless an article on a given song presents all of the covers of that song that have been recorded by notable artists. And I don't really see the harm in allowing for all of these covers to be listed in a table - up to a reasonable limit of course. --Jpcase (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Many notable artists release cover albums, I don't see a need to note this on the article for every song covered on those albums. If there is some significance to such recordings and mentioned in a third-party source, sure. Mentioning Luther Vandross' cover of Love the One You're With in that song's article makes sense to me, listing his version in What the World Needs Now Is Love doesn't. The fact that a certain song has been covered numerous times may be worth noting in an article but to list every version by a notable artist simply because they covered it is a bit overkill. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the concept, but not proposed the execution. I'm glad the collapsed option was taken off the table quickly. A table is too heavy for something like this. A simple bullet list would suffice.
I'll offer a few comments to support the idea. AllMusic already attempts to do something like this by linking each song title and when done correctly, the link takes you to a list of versions recorded by the band. Yes, many songs by the Beatles have hundreds of covers, but so do many Leonard Cohen songs (what's "Hallelujah" up to now, not including the 17 listed covers that charted?) Let's look at a concrete example: Point of Know Return by Kansas]. All ten songs are linked. We would not likely do that. The link for the first song, the title track, lists the "Appears On" list that shows that all but one of the covers are by the band. I'm assuming that's not the goal here. Compare that to "Dust in the Wind". Still, no other covers, only compilations. Let's look at a song by the Beatles that isn't "Yesterday", such as "it Be". It doesn't list covers. That's the case with "Hallelujah" as well. And to add an exclamation point: Bruce Springsteen penned "Blinded by the Light" (with the help of a rhyming dictionary), but the version that charted isn't listed at that entry. In all cases, you have to go to the "Also Performed By" tab. By our standards, that's very hidden.
With that in mind, if we were to implement something like this, I would argue that a list of no more than a dozen otherwise notable performers could be added in a covers section, provided that it has an album name and a source (that is more than a database entry of the album). If it's more than a short number of entries all covers could be added to a new article, but that article would be listed as a tab, just like (in my skin) we have Article and Talk at the top. It would require working with someone more technical to address, but it's certainly possible. Heck, we should have the discography and members pages linked like that, but that's a separate challenge. If that can't be done, a new article could be added. Again, the references are key. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Silent Night's 200th anniversary is on December 24th[edit]

Autograph (c. 1860) of the carol by Franz Gruber

Hi all. "Silent Night" was first performed on Christmas Eve in 1818, and consequently will appear on the Main page in the "On this day" section on December 24th. As the article is within the scope of this Wikiproject I figured editors here might be interested in improving it before then. There are no major issues with it that I can see, but it's also rather short and I feel certain it could be significantly expanded if interested editors had a go at it. I'd be happy to help out, of course, but as this isn't remotely my field I fear I have very little to contribute. Any takers? (PS. Cross-posting this to WP:CM and WP:SONGS as the most relevant Wikiprojects with recent activity.) --Xover (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(PS. @Xover: Your small lightly-colored text is really hard to see. --Izno (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC))

Discussion about the Latvian charts[edit]

Hello, I would like to inform anyone who's interested about this discussion on the legitimacy of the Latvian airplay chart that's being used in several articles. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Four songs in one article[edit]

Currently, the "Cocaine Blues" article deals with at least 4 different songs. Please discuss at Talk:Cocaine Blues if you care. —  AjaxSmack  21:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Great American Songbook[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Great American Songbook#The future of this article as to how to deal with the uncited lists of songwriters, songs, and singers in that article. Please join the discussion if it interests you. Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyediting request on Skibidi[edit]

I have placed a copyedit tag on this article that I recently converted from a redirect. Any editor with knowledge about the subject is welcome to provide copyedits of their own. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Billboard chart statistics for Christmas songs[edit]

Holiday charts seem like a strange hybrid in that they run weekly but for only one month of the year, and many songs reappear there annually at the end of each year even though its not a year-end chart like the ones that Billboard magazine calculates for other genres of music. Since there can be an eleven-month hiatus between appearances on a chart for a specific recording, I'm wondering if the statistics for each year the song charts should be recognized. For example, the song page for "All I Want for Christmas Is You" by Mariah Carey has its peak position at No. 1 on Billboard's Holiday 100 chart, but there's no sense of when this reign began or whether or not it has ended when, in fact, the song has been in the top spot for 33 of the 38 weeks that the chart has been posted since it began in December 2011. I know that, for non-holiday hits, a list of the weekly positions is not allowed, but it seems like indicating the peak position for each Christmas season that the song appears on a specific chart would be reasonable, as has been done for "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree". I'm not finding any listings or discussion of the subject when I search for "Christmas" or "holiday" on pages such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts, Wikipedia:Record charts, or their talk pages, but if I've missed some guidelines somewhere, I would appreciate being directed to them. Otherwise, it seems like a topic that should be addressed. If I were to guess which charts that include Christmas songs are OK to use based on previous Billboard chart discussions, the list would be:

  • Hot 100 - obviously OK
  • Holiday 100 and Holiday Albums - up for discussion, but I would guess they're OK since they seem like any other genre
  • Holiday Digital Song Sales, Holiday Streaming Songs, Holiday Airplay - definitely not acceptable

I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion so that we can maybe find some agreement on how to proceed with this information. Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)