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.

Question on origin of Glad All Over, I'm So Glad[edit]

Question: Were Dave Clark Five's "Glad All Over" and Cream's "I'm So Glad" intended as send-ups of Charles Hubert Parry's coronation hymn "I Was Glad?" This song is still used at Royal occasions and would have been well-known to these bands. This bears looking into. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, September 21, 2019 (UTC)

Creating redirects to album tracks[edit]

There appears to be a few editors who are creating redirects for every track on an album - often without waiting for the album to released or the actual tracks are confirmed. In addition to this, some editors are creating 3 redirects for each song (when available, for instance, White Mercedes, White Mercedes (Charli XCX song), and White Mercedes (song) - all redirects to Charli (album) (these are merely the last example I have seen and I am not aware of which editor has done this). Should it continue, should alternate titling be permitted or any other opinions, guys? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify, are you questioning the creation of song redirects in general, or just those for unreleased albums? I am guilty of creating song redirects, but I find this helpful in case people are searching specific song titles. Certainly not pointing any fingers here, but I know User:Ss112 does the same, so pinging them in case they care to share any thoughts as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
At the moment I just want to get the conversation started - and see if there is any agreement here. By all means add anybody into the discussion who might have an interest. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen such work and would rather that it not happen, but when I try to get the redirects deleted, the discussion is closed because redirects are WP:CHEAP.
If it were just for singles that fail notability criteria or are never likely to contain more than peak chart listings, I would have no problems, but agree that most songs don't need a redirect. I'm fine to automate the process of creating thousands of CHEAP song title redirects to make that point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, in the end, we don't know which tracks are going to end up being notable from the album at the start of an album cycle, especially in the age of streaming and availability of album tracks to listen to individually. Also, I don't believe redirects are solely for things that may turn into articles—they can be valid search terms, and album tracks fall into this category. As Another Believer pointed out, they can be considered helpful as readers and other editors do search specific song titles. In addition, it has been said at RfD discussions that one may not know the "correct" amount of disambiguation to use to search for a song title. For the record, I don't create redirects for tracks that haven't been confirmed by a reliable source and I don't think most would argue that it's acceptable to actually do this—obviously there are occasions where sources end up being wrong or songs don't end up on an album, but that's the exception. I really don't think this practice is going to stop—this is not the first time this has been brought up and I'm sure it won't be the last. I know there are many editors who don't bother with this, but I don't see an issue. (No need to ping me with potential replies; I've had a number of discussion–arguments about this in the past and I don't really wish to have more.) Ss112 00:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
You know that the search tool can actually find titles inside of articles. At one time "valid search term" meant something; it no longer does. For instance: the obscure album "Kalhöun. I look for "Note to Anna", without the quotes, and it is found (about a hundred items in, but still found). With quotes, it's the only result returned. "Tracking the Amorous Man" is found as the first item even without quotes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:Ss112 entirely. ---Another Believer (Talk) 08:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Besides the very valid points about the improvements to search functionality which Walter raises, there is an issue of 'importance' and taking the White Mercedes example, there are 3 and possibly 4 songs with that title, there is also a book called The White Mercedes and I daresay other examples. Song titles are rarely unique, so in this limited example, where should 'White Mercedes' really point? Does it really take 3 variants? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't this standard practice? There is no problem in creating redirects for confirmed song titles, as they are very likely to be search terms and/or become notable soon. Redirects from excess disambiguation are not detrimental either. As such, I see no reason we shouldn’t be "permit[ted]" to create them.—NØ 10:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
No, not standard practice, merely practiced by a few editors. Also the creation of multiple redirects for the same song appears to frowned upon according to WP:TITLE which says a title should be concise enough to differentiate between subjects, so, if, White Mercedes is sufficient, all other variants are unnecessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
And of course for most readers white Mercedes wouldn't be an album track, it would be The White Mercedes, so sucking readers into the Charli album isn't helpful. That redirect should be deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It strikes me as a waste of time, especially for these non-single, deep album cuts with lots of disambiguation. But I guess what harm does it do if these people are creating things that will largely never be seen by 99.9% of readers, and technically aren’t wrong? I don’t do it, nor would I ever encourage anyone to do it though. But it seems few are affected. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with Richhoncho about SS112 and Another Believer's album track redirects - it is actually directly unhelpful to readers because in a large amount of instances these editors creating (song) redirects for albums by their favourite artists are missing other songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @In ictu oculi:. I don't think it is helpful mentioning particular editors, there are others, and there are the copyists, who do the same thing for their own favourite album (some of which are so NN they are quickly deleted). The bottom line is should it become standard practice or not? Doing it because I like it is not the WP way, that's why we are aiming for a consensus here.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Richhoncho, I agree, no need to call out specific editors. I've acknowledged I create song redirects sometimes, but I would not consider this a primary activity of mine and plenty of other editors do the same. I'm not understanding how the redirects are problematic when they are possible search terms. If some editors find it a waste of time, so what? It's not your time being "wasted". ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I can give you a practical example of why the practice is detrimental. There is a redirect created for One Night Lover recently created to R.O.S.E. (album), however, there are at least 3 other songs on albums with articles on WP, one of which looks like it might even warrant an article. A disambiguation page would be far more beneficial, covering the specific title, similar titles, than forceably sending readers in a predetermined direction. And, as has already been pointed out, without any redirect the searcher will be able to see all the alternatives. Let the search tool do its job without throwing redirects in its way to stop it working. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Readers can still use the search function even when a redirect exists. To be quite honest, I don't see this thread ever achieving broad enough consensus from enough editors (as it would need) to achieve anything. Besides, nobody here can decide that editors cannot create redirects for songs, because if editors in all other areas of Wikipedia can create redirects, why shouldn't music editors be able to? Even if by some miracle—to those who don't like that song redirects exist—that was the consensus achieved, you're still going to get editors who don't know about the consensus creating redirects. You can't stop the practice, and you can't possibly nominate every song or album redirect made by every editor for deletion like this is some sort of Neelix's-ridiculous-redirects situation, because I don't think most editors would be inclined to agree they're not valid like Neelix's certainly weren't. If you don't like song redirects, don't interact with them, don't add categories to them, don't create talk pages for them. Pretty simple really. (Also, have to say, I laughed at "editors creating (song) redirects for albums by their favourite artists"—as if most of the redirects editors make are for artists they're fans of. I know for myself that is certainly not the case.) Ss112 22:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t care much...but the scenario you present is laughable. Creating redirects is not a casual, passerby activity. Most casual readers probably don’t even understand the concept. Most of the excessive redirect creators are prolific, long term editors, and if they kept going after there was a consensus, they’d keep being blocked, and 90% of it would stop. Again, I’m not saying it needs to be stopped...but the premise that it can’t be substantially lessened is laughable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: What "scenario"? I never said it couldn't be lessened—but I don't really think it needs to be, nor that it's going to be. You clearly aren't seeing the amount of editors who see others making redirects starting to do it themselves. Not "laughable" when I'm seeing it happen all the time. And good luck with there ever being a consensus, as I said. Blocking editors for making song about laughable scenarios. Ss112 21:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I think where it is problematic is directing X (song) to one favourite artist's songs - have seen some particularly bad examples where every generic title on an obscure rapper's non-notable album was directed to it. And almost every single damn song was not unique to that album. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, your opinion on what is obscure has been proven to be problematic in the past. You seem to think any artist you aren't aware of, even those that have US No. 1 albums, is "obscure". If you have such a problem, make some more disambiguation pages out of them. You seem to be quite good at finding them. Editors are not going to do 20 minutes of research to find every little last song in music history that may share the same title. Ss112 21:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discography at DYK[edit]

Anyone has good idea for hook for discography? Eurohunter (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Template for cover song sections that need sourcing?[edit]

Is there a template for tagging cover song sections that need sourcing, similar to Template:In popular culture? If not, should there be? DonIago (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If it needs sourcing, or is a song that fails WP:NSONG it needs trimming. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Richhoncho is right, the template doesn't exist, but if it fails WP:COVERSONG it should just be cut out straight away, rather than tagging it for someone else to do at a later date. If it's for the whole section there's {{Template: Unreferenced section}}. Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If the material has existed for some time, I use Template:Cleanup section with |reason=cover versions may not meet WP:SONGCOVER.:
If it isn't addressed after a while, I delete it (to meet SONGCOVER needs more than a source that shows it exists). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fuck It Up (Iggy Azalea song) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 19:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Should promotional singles be included in Infoboxes?[edit]

The reason I am asking this is because recently, Speed Demon and Speechless have been removed from the infoboxes of Bad and Invincible pages, this has stirred up some controversy, so I'm wondering if we should or shouldn't be putting promotional singles in infoboxes.

Many thanks.

Great Mercian (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If it wasn't available for public sale, then no, I don't believe they should be included in infoboxes. Promotional singles were sent out all the time to radio stations back in the 1980s and 1990s for all artists, but they were never part of an artist's official singles chronology. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)