Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 21

A recent flurry of content dispute activity on multiple song pages, including

The comparison to

WP:SONGCOVER is interesting: in order to include a cover in a song article requires that it be discussed by a reliable source to show that it has some level of importance, not just the fact that it exists. The idea is to prevent articles from being loaded up with minor, unnoticed versions, that for some popular songs can reach dozens or even hundreds. The same should apply to "In pop culture"-type appearances. If a song is used in a movie or commercial in some memorable way that has drawn the interest of critics or other writers, it may be included in the song article (preferably with some context) with a citation to a RS. The mostly unreferenced Happy Together (song)#In popular culture section is a perfect example of what should be avoided. A guidance statement along the lines of SONGCOVER should be added to the project "Article content" section. —Ojorojo (talk

) 16:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I use the commonly used inclusion criteria of whether or not a third party has covered the appearance as to whether or not it’s worth mentioning in an article. Additionally, I definitely don’t add it as a list or a dedicated section, but rather, as very brief prose in another section. (Usually “Background” somewhere related to release and promotion or impact.) In short, it can be worth mentioning, and occasionally assist in notability discussions, but should be kept as brief as possible per

WP:UNDUE and various cruft/trivia ideas. Sergecross73 msg me

17:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Ojorojo; Happy Together's lists of trivia are almost hilarious.

Sergecross please clarify; By [...] it can be worth mentioning, and occasionally assist in notability discussions, but should be kept as brief as possible [...], do you mean the coverage of trivia in articles or guidance on the coverage on this Project page? It's the [...] occasionally assist in notability discussions[...] bit that confused me.

Should we lean, in agreement with Sergecross's preference, and avoid dedicated trivia sections? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Per

consensus to stay away from these trivia/appearances sections. I’m just saying that the content doesn’t need to be 100% removed from the article either - it could be blended into other sections, but as a brief (3rd party sourced) sentence or two in a background section, not sentence after sentence of “and then it was in x, and then it was in y, etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me

12:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If we're in agreement (at this possibly early stage) that some guidance should be added to the Project page; I think between "Article content" → "Cover versions/multiple renditions" and "External links" seems like the correct spot for it to be section-titled perhaps something like "Use in other media/effect on popular culture"? Although we haven't an avalanche of interest at this time, the guidance required appears to be a fairly straightforward, commonsense combination of multiple guides we already have. Bringing it together here in an easy to parse, contextually specific, one hit reference would make life simple. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it would consolidate existing policies and guidelines for casual editors who may not be aware of them. Some ideas to cover in a guidance section (some are obvious or repetitious, but are for a broad audience):

• Not all uses in other media should be added to song articles. Only those that have gained a level of recognition, such as attention from critics and other writers, merit inclusion.
• The use should be discussed in a reliable source to show that it is noteworthy; passing mentions or listings are insufficient.
• It should be integrated in the article, preferably with some context as described by a RS rather than "It was in Episode 15 of The ABC Show". A separate section and/or
  WP:Embedded list
  is rarely justified. In any event, the other uses should not be given undue weight.
• Perhaps an example or two illustrate these points can be given.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support all of Ojorojo’s bulletpoints above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice work Ojorojo. The first three bullets could be directly copy/pasted with some applied linking to relevant guidelines/policies IMO. As for the last bullet; yes a couple of "nope" and a couple of "yay" examples would be ideal. I personally don't know of any particularly good examples either way, but will do a bit of hunting. That "rarely justified" case for more focussed attention should probably have a "yay" example if there is one; everything other than those extreme cases is excluded by the advice, so a "nope" example doesn't seem necessary to me. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Particularly relevant policies, guidelines and essays

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

Policies

• content policies
  ."
• WP:DUE
  (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight): "[...] articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all[...]"
• synthesis
  of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

Guidelines

• an organized way
  ."
• Only if we apply the slightly adapted conditions of these guidelines to the uses of the subject song:
  • independent
    of the artist and labelpublisher of the media in which the song was featured."
  • WP:SONGCOVER
    (Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover versions/multiple renditions): "Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles."

Essays

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
• properly sourced
  examples that are bona fide cultural references."

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

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

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

The list of performers on the BBC version needs some work. Apparently Heather Small was on it three times?!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There's clearly a lot of work to do in general regarding this trivia thing but, I think the above examples of usage (as opposed to how they're covered in their respective articles) are good. Please make alternative suggestions if they're not considered suitable, and I'm sure we'll build an agreeable selection in no time. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles that have a good "use in media" statement may have other problems that make them less than ideal as examples. "Perfect Day" also includes a typically trivial "In other media" section. Blue Velvet (song)#Use in film soundtracks includes some info about Lynch, but also has other unsourced trivial use mentions. Kansas City (Leiber and Stoller song)#Recognition and influence has an interesting use, but the article is a mess. I was hoping to find a FA or GA, but so far haven't. Good work on the applicability of existing policies. This discussion can be linked in the guidance entry to show how it came about. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts and personally think we'd be better off providing good and bad examples with some simple reasoning as theory rather than practice i.e. explain why Perfect Day or Blue Velvet's use in other media is worthy of note, rather than simply link to the articles. As article content is constantly changing (and not always for the better), we can't be sure that offering one as an example will have the desired effect next week. Consider the obvious use of Happy Together as an example of a really bad article (in the respect); hopefully with this clarification in place, the amending of the article will prove a reasonably smooth process, which would render the article a good example and we'd have to amend the guide. I'll try and write up what I mean tomorrow (after some sleep). We'll have it nailed down soon enough :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Calidum

03:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Dagger and Seven Nation Army at sports events. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

All twelve suggestions (so far)

• Spaceman (Babylon Zoo song)
• Should I Stay or Should I Go
• In the Air Tonight
• Phat Planet
• Perfect Day (Lou Reed song)
• Blue Velvet (song)
• Kansas City (Leiber and Stoller song)
• Don't Stop Believing
• Baby Blue (Badfinger song)
• Tomorrow Never Knows
• Chelsea Dagger
• Seven Nation Army

Our preferences

In the Air Tonight, Blue Velvet, Tomorrow Never Knows, Don't Stop Believing then Perfect Day; 2 or 3 examples. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the "some simple reasoning as theory rather than practice" that you mentioned above (the otherwise good Don't Stop Believin'#In popular culture begins with a typical unsourced "The film Monster prominently included the song in 2003"). But I'll go along with what you decide. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've not abandoned this discussion; I'll be back B) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft guidance

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

Songs are heard and referenced in movies, TV shows, commercials, during political campaigns and at sporting events; songs are widely adopted in popular culture but not every instance is

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

Taking care to not

• its use should be
  integrated in the article
  , preferably with some context as described by reliable sources, rather than e.g. "It was in Episode 15 of The Example TV Show"
• a separate section or
  WP:DATELIST

In any event, the uses of the song should not be given

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

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

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

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

A very good start. I am wondering about the length (as is, it would be the longest subsection/topic in "Article content"). Also, the inclusion of "For lists of uses by date, use an instance of {{Timeline-event}} for each entry; see WP:DATELIST" may be counterproductive. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I made a minor grammatical edit, and I'm not sure you can say "very notably" instead of "notably", but these are trivial points... it looks good and something like this should be implemented. Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar fix Richard (for brevity we should probably just adjust the draft instead of repeat it with changes); I removed the "very" per your concern. And:

Yes Ojorojo, it is comparatively long isn't it. Considering the apparent scale of the issue on song articles (I killed the unsourced crap on "Happy Together" yesterday and am waiting to see if anyone complains), and the complexity of tying together all the relevant policies in a coherent guide, I wonder if its length is appropriate. Please suggest how it should be trimmed though; I'm not precious or delicate. We can remove the "timeline" stuff, but it does at least offer guidance, if a list is going to be used, that would perhaps result in lists that don't completely suck. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a little trimming and copy-editing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Any thoughts on the above draft? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I really like it. I fully support it. It’s pretty much what I’ve done in song articles I’ve created and maintained anyways. (I kind of chuckled at the use of the word “tragic”....but it’s not wrong either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is all sensible advice. It's not exactly the same, but I've used basically the same logic when dealing with lists of artists who have used a particular piece of musical equipment. Here's an equivalent tragic example.

talk

) 15:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Great; should we wait to see if there's any opposition or concerns that need addressing, or just go ahead with deployment and tweak it in situ? Ojorojo was concerned by the length, but it has been trimmed since, and the suggestion to use a timeline if appropriate was discussed. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just passing by, and while I totally agree with the content, it seems too long and over-complicated. Consider putting all three criteria in a single line. I'm also not certain the examples given serve the purpose. I looked at "Perfect Day" and I can't say it exemplifies the criteria listed. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Muhandes: You're right, the "Perfect Day" article is not an ideal example, which is why the example is not the article, but just one of the uses of the song in other media. Nearly every good example is currently buried in articles with less good and downright bad stuff alongside; the actual use of "Perfect Day" in Fear the Walking Dead is exactly inline with the guidance. It's not too amazing to set an unreasonably high bar, while being precisely what we can fairly consider noteworthy. I'm not sure that the three criteria would read well as one line myself, but I can put it back as three lines if you think it looks to long (in page length terms). Short bursts of info tend to sink in better than long prose; "The line length should not be too long as the eye gets lost; too short and the reader is unsettled."^[2] Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. We had already discussed this concern (example articles vs example theory) above. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

The current version is much better. I'd further shorten (or even drop) the sentence If the above criteria are met, next consider if the article about a song could be

how, where and by whom it has been used. The links do not really help understanding the concept. I also still think the examples are confusing rather than helping, maybe that's just how my mind works. --Muhandes (talk

) 16:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made more alterations per your feedaback, but it's now significantly different to the draft that others "liked"; we'll have to wait for more feedback. I haven't changed the examples because I can't see the problem myself. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's getting better, but I still would prefer something more succinct. A recent edit to SONGCOVER made it even briefer.[9] I'm not suggesting this for here, but the difference is striking. The approach and tone should be more consistent from subsection to subsection. The Beach Boys quote in the opening doesn't really add much and I agree with Muhandes that the links for the examples are not that helpful. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The Beach Boys quote was just a thought, but gone. The great example of a truly noteworthy use of a song in other media that is "In the Air Tonight" in the Cadbury ad leading to a good article was meant to concisely demonstrate what we should be aiming for, but I've scrapped it. I've removed the linking to Perfect Day since it seems to be confusing, though I fail to see the problem myself; the fair example is the example not the article. Making advice less advisory so it looks like the other advice about different issues is utterly ridiculous; it doesn't matter at all whether this section is longer than the others. Perhaps the other sections need to be expanded, to be clearer and more rooted in and exemplary of their core policies and guidelines; perhaps then we'd have fewer trashbag articles with more trivial garbage than sources, spewing out the sides of this encyclopedia. <insert continued rant here> I'm tired of tweaking the draft and am going to do something else. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of these complaints...aren’t necessarily Wikipedia’s fault. There are many artists that simply don’t disclose that level of detail in the writing/recording/credits just simply isn’t documented or disclosed anywhere. Or if it is, it’s hard to find. I would know - I find that sort of information interesting too, and would add it more frequently if I could. Alternatively, the other issue is writer interest. Many editors would rather waste their time arguing whether or not a band/album/song is “heavy metal” or “alternative metal” (which is commonly splitting hairs and inconsequential) than actually describing its actual sound/composition/themes/etc. Similarly, editors would often rather update YouTube views or narrate a music video than dig deep into the creation process. Like it or not, when it’s a volunteer project, people only do what they find interesting. Your complaints are a combination of “not possible” and “not likely”... Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Dare I say

SO FIX IT? Yes, I dare. As Serge says, (I paraphrase) "good articles require good info, which is sadly sometimes hard to come by". I recently had to buy a 12-inch vinyl single I have no other practical use for, just so I could read the info on the label for an article! Damn thing wasn't cheap either *grumble grumble*. If you want Wikipedia to be better – make it better – if you can. While you're thinking about that, try not to forget that with currently nearly 6 million articles about practically everything, we're not doing too badly :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs

23:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll echo what Sergecross73 says above... there are over 100,000 (and rising) song articles on Wikipedia, and only a handful of regular editors who work on them, and album articles too, so we can't keep up. It's also the case that songs from the last 10 or 15 years are much better represented on Wikipedia than older songs - it's understandable that the majority of Wikipedia editors are interested in the "now", and only have access to the internet, and not to books and music magazines from an earlier era when these were the only sources of information about songs. As a member of the British Library I have more access to this print information than most, but as I no longer live in the UK my visits are infrequent, and there's only so much information you can look for in one day at the library. One person's idea of top priority songs to work on will be very different from another's. The Songs WikiProject doesn't have a list of "most vital songs", but the Albums project does... I'm visiting New York next month and hope to visit the magazine collection in the NY Public Library and help out on the Rolling Stone 500 albums list, which is the project's priority. Wikipedia really needs a lot more editors with the time and access to these resources, but unfortunately most of us still have jobs and other things to attend to in real life to be able to dedicate ourselves to Wikipedia totally. We're not ignoring certain songs or albums... it's just that it's always going to be a very long process to try and research everything.

Serge is also correct that in many cases, the information simply doesn't exist as to the level of detail of the songwriting. Most people are aware, for example, that although the "Lennon/McCartney" credits appear on the majority of Beatles songs, some were more Lennon and some were more McCartney... but it took until Iain McDonald's Revolution in the Head to provide any real details. But that's a rare exception that does provide the kind of detail you are looking for - all R.E.M. songs were equally credited to all four members until Bill Berry's departure, but they certainly weren't joint efforts for the most part, although nobody knows who wrote which songs or what parts of the music, and it's likely to remain unknown. Another example are the songs of Elton John - it's commonly assumed that John wrote all the music and Taupin all the lyrics, but that's not true: Elton often added verses or replaced Taupin's words with some of his own, but again, it's not always known which songs this occurred on. Richard3120 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And I would add, often when the whole band is credited as songwriters, it is to save the arguments when they come back from their first world tour and the songwriter of the group has bought a nice new 10-bedroom mansion while the rest still have to live with mum and dad. The songwriters named at WP can only be as revealed in neutral official source, including ASCAP, BMI, and a few other PROs that make the information publicly available - and that is the 'primary' source of this information, of course if it is claimed elsewhere somebody did or did not take part in the writing process and is reported by RS, then that can/should be in the article as well. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I recently learned about White Lines (Don't Don't Do It)'s bullshit accreditation of "Grandmaster (sometimes 'Flash') & Melle Mel" by the record label in an attempt to hoodwink buyers into thinking Grandmaster Flash was one of the creators! Shady business indeed >.< Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: early hip hop singles are a prime example of how writing credits on the label don't tell you the full story of who was really behind the song... Grandmaster Flash's "Adventures on the Wheels of Steel" samples Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust", Chic's "Good Times" and Blondie's "Rapture" among others, but none of the writers of these songs are credited... Sugarhill label boss Sylvia Robinson does receive a writing credit, but Flash himself doesn't... but surely it was entirely Flash's idea to come up with the idea of mixing all these records together, and was therefore the only "composer" of the song? Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have two responses. The first is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic compendium of notable works. Working backward, the work must be notable before we would even consider creating an article for it. Not every song on every album is notable. Unless a sevaral writers do the research on the song and publish that information, we don't meet

WP:NSONG

criteria gives you some ideas of when writers may be interested in writing about a song, but not every song that meets the second criteria will meet the first. That brings me to the first part of that phrase, we have to be able to have an encyclopedic entry for the songs. Simply to state that a song was written by someone and was released on an album at some point is not encyclopedic. We are not a database that lists every song ever written. That's not our goal and most of us will leave the project if that starts to happen.

The second response is be

WP:BOLD. If you know that we do not have an entry for a notable song, write it yourself. You can either start it as a draft and have it moved to main space, or you can try to create it in main space and be sure to provide sufficient references to convince us it's a notable work. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 17:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I also know that most editors have tendency to use a cover art (or "picture sleeve" or "artwork") mainly to illustrate an artist, a song title, and to illustrate critical commentary. It happens to most song articles, especially about older songs from the 20th century. A vinyl single's side label is a free alternative, but it seems that most editors don't really want to use a label. I know that cover arts have been a marketing tool and strategy primarily to attract music listeners. I believe that, to use only a picture sleeve, an insertion of a side label would be denied, especially per

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

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

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

...I think you’re going to write up a briefer version on this if you want anyone to give more input on this... Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I started this pre-RfC with hopes of knowing what to do next besides writing a "briefer version". Speaking of "briefer version on this", do you mean the RfC? If so, then which one of the two issues do you think must I concentrate on for the RfC? George Ho (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that is a massive wall of text and there must be a more concise way of outlining the basic premise of the issue. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what George is saying is (a) can we use the cover art from an EP, promotional single or other form of release in the infobox, if the main release format of the single didn't have a picture sleeve or doesn't illustrate the artist name and/or song title as clearly as another format, and (b) is it OK to describe a song as a single if it's only been released as one region of the world and remains an album track elsewhere? Forgive me if I've got anything wrong, but as Serge says, that's a lot of text to wade through to get to the heart of the matter. Richard3120 (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, this was exactly what I was asking for, if that is in fact a correct summation of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard, for summarizing well what I said (or should have intentionally said earlier). I was planning to summarize my very long text, but then I guess Richard's summary is mostly correct and better than I intentionally planned. There are also other issues that Ojorojo raised, like "1) what to use for |type= when there are different releases, and 2) should only an image be used that is described in the infobox?". Nevertheless, those issues brought up by Ojorojo are harder to explain in concise words than the ones brought up by Richard. I begin to realized the two issues that Richard summarized are more important and matter more to me than the other two that Ojorojo mentioned. In other words, if necessary I'll try two separate RfCs on issues brought up by Richard3120.

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

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

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

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

Starting over from the above discussion...

The instruction of Template:infobox song#type says:

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

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

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

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

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

Shorter version

The instruction of Template:infobox song#type says:

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

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

• Keep as is Songs that were released only as album tracks in the US and UK are sometimes issued on promo singles or commercial singles in other markets. However, when the song remains best-known as from an album, |type=song is displayed in the infobox.

  As a recent example, "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" was released on Led Zeppelin's first album. To promote the album, it was included on a promo EP, which were usually only sent out to radio stations and the press. Although the group were opposed to releasing singles, apparently it was released in Greece. I own several LZ biographies and "Babe" is always discussed as an album cut, with no mention of a Greek single. It's not included on the FL Led Zeppelin discography under "Singles ...", maybe because it never charted. The FA Led Zeppelin doesn't identify it as a single. The "Babe" article didn't mention it, until one unreferenced sentence was added "The version was released as a single in Greece; its B-side track is 'How Many More Times'" was added at the same time as the type was changed to "single".[12] So, it seems that the Greek single has attracted no interest by reliable sources.

  By scouring Discogs or 45cat, it is possible to find obscure releases ("

  Gallows Pole" as "La Horca" by "Ledd [sic] Zeppelin" was released as a 7-inch 33 rpm A-side in Argentina).[13]

  However, the fact that these exist is not sufficient to identify songs as singles. When they are not discussed by reliable sources, even mentioning them in an article seems to be little more than trivia (which WP song articles are thankfully moving away from). Maybe this idea can be expanded or clarified in the infobox guidance.

  —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I hardly think this concern is really about the template or its documentation, which seem perfectly fine to me; each of the examples provided demonstrate that the infobox and documentation are working as expected/desired. Any issues regarding what |type= should be applied should be addressed case-by-case on the respective articles and their respective talks. The semantics are clear and I don't feel the need to provide more examples to explain my opinion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Where a

Since it is falls into the list of "songs, instrumentals, arias, numbers in a musical, movements of longer musical piece, album tracks, singles, and other short musical compositions",

MOS:QUOTETITLE applies. Is someone arguing against it? Walter Görlitz (talk

) 02:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently no argument about it I know of Walter; I just wasn't sure. Consider (ignoring the red hue):

• Awesome Song – not half as awesome as you might think

Should the song name be quoted like:

• "Awesome Song" – not half as awesome as you might think

If it should, I suppose italicising album names (and other similar work names) would also be appropriate? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to think styling in a see also list is a bit off the mark (no idea why I think that), but the MOS still applies to see also sections. We do style navboxes appropriately, for a parallel. --Izno (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I would argue for

• "Awesome Song" – not half as awesome as you might think

or

• "Awesome Song" (Awesome Band song) – not half as awesome as you might think

as that meets QUOTETITLE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Walter and Izno. It's good to get feedback when one's not quite sure. "Awesome Band" should really be a thing :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, Some Band was already taken. It was the name of Steve Taylor's back-up band in the 1980s. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is there a consensus as to which release date is to be used in the infobox for a single? I'm in a feud on

Sock-puppetry and warring aside; a single's release date is just that. Whatever the official initial release date was, where good sources are available for confirmation, is the only reasonable date to use. I can't imagine any need for discussion; consensus would surely be implicit; by definition, the "release date of a single" is just that. Anything beyond an official release (leaked, rerelease, pirated etc.) can be stated separately for lulz if the weight is due and the sources good. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Take care that date information corresponds with related boxes. For instance, the page "Dancing in the Dark" has an infobox for release date. In the page for the album, "Born In the U.S.A.", there are infoboxes for singles released, and date released. The first single released was "Dancing In the Dark", and there is an infobox for it's release date. This date has to correspond with the date on the "Dancing In the Dark" page infobox, do we agree on that? They cannot have conflicting information. Thank you

Tillywilly17 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/Tillywilly17 – because. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is in need of

intensive care. It is a rambling and incomprehensible mess.--Egghead06 (talk

) 15:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of editing to look at, but the gist I get from their talk page and contribs is that they're claiming to be a writer for "brucebase" (a now unavailable but partially archived wiki) and are providing sources with no specificity (like pages). The first obvious issue is that as a writer for this wiki, were they regarded by a wider community as being an authority on the subject, or as having any editorial oversight? I noticed some comments about copying from "his own website"; if "brucebase" is that "website", I pulled up an archive of one of the pages, which states that "Contributions to http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License"[16], so at least that wouldn't be a problem. They're certainly enthusiastic, but phrases like "do not delete my original words again like you did last time" show possible ownership issues and an unwillingness to collaborate (which if they're used to working on a private wiki, isn't surprising). Administrator intervention seems required, as their talk page and contribs indicate a large amount of disruption to articles. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Love that song. I did some script-assisted clean-up and it's on my watchlist now. Yes, it needs work and if there are copyvios, we can alert an admin to remove them. I'll let you do the legwork. I'll offer support as needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Doug you have done but insult me, my integrity, and one of the other websites I work for, which I give full effort to just like here

You are making my life here miserable. Try to be more positive so we can collaborate

Tillywilly17 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Editors with continuous disruptive editing where discussion and reasoning has otherwise failed should be reported to

WP:ANI at the earliest convenience. Jalen D. Folf (talk)

21:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:THREAD

It is essential that you add your comments after any that are already present in the section, and that you do not interfere with comments by other editors. Ensure you sign you comments, and for clarity, please state exactly to whom you are speaking with each post.

Thank you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

sorry I have been on defense lately, felt ganged up on. I have stopped contributing for awhile so I can concentrate on clearing up problems and complaints.

The article is in need of

intensive care. It is a rambling and incomprehensible mess. by Egghead06

<<< this was an untimely comment, it came after my contributions to the article had been removed, destroying the structure, and then complains the article is now a mess.

I have abandoned work on this article for now, It took hours to write, and after being ganged up on and accused of shabby work by others here who don't know me, or my work habits. I am retired, financially

stable, and I go to different sites to contribute knowledge I have studied. I write fairly well, and usually it becomes obvious that I am well studied and prepared, and my contributions are of value. If my work

is unwelcome, I will move on. I do not charge or get paid for any of my work, I do it for fun, satisfaction, accomplishment. Why do the rest of you work here? I assume for the same reasons.

Tillywilly17 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Something you could consider doing @

sandbox in your userspace at User:Tillywilly17/sandbox, where you can work on a copy of any article you want to improve, then ask other interested editors to review the draft in your sandbox, submit comments and by that measure work on major alterations in a calm, collaboration. Major changes to established articles, especially when done in stages, can be viewed as troublesome, as at times the live content may seem incomplete. Something to consider :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs

05:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So now this editor has gone off to his different sites, we are left with an article where major sections on personnel, lyrics, performances are unreferenced and often unencyclopedic in tone. Needs re-writing.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Fred I will do that. Egghead06, your sarcastic comments are not productive, you are not supportive, what have you done to fix these problems besides complain. Despite all problems, I am still here.

Tillywilly17 (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It is very hard to be supportive of anyone who is pointed in the direction of the need for verifying references and to not add original research and copyrighted material and then ignores that advice.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I wish another editor would step up and tell you not to post your negative trash anymore. I will get around to doing whatever when my blood pressure returns to normal and I can think straight again. Is this how you get your rocks off, just pounding a new editor into the ground? Go away, sadistic bully. Give me a chance to address your issues.Tillywilly17 (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remain

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