Wikipedia talk:Notability (songs)/Archive 1

"Large or medium-sized country", etc

We read:

• the Top 40 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country

• a song that hit the Top 20 on a major country's chart

I don't suppose geographical area matters all that much. So what does matter -- population? Compared with Indonesia, let alone China, most countries seem insignificant, and I've a feeling that the notion of "medium" is affected by where one has lived. (For Germans, ten million would be small; for Latvians, large.) I dunno ... could one say twenty million? Or do something less arbitrary like 40% of the median national population? (But why 40 and not 30 or 50 or whatever?)

Whatever the population, it will be a lot less than the populations of speakers of a number of, say, Indian languages; and for all I know there are charts of Gujarati, Malayalam and other hits. It could then seem a little, um, "nationalocentric" to automatically include top forty hits of Romania (pop. 22M) but not those of Gujarati-speaking India (pop. 43M).

(Though I've a dark suspicion that some people take "major" to mean "anglophone".)

Another thing. Let's imagine that some musically, politically, socially (etc) insignificant song manages to be top of the pops in Estonia (pop. under one and a half million) for a whole year. I think that this alone would make it significant. Or anyway, a simple binary rule "'Chart performance' is a criterion for significance when population (or area, or market size or whatever) is above X; not when it's below this" is unreasonable.

Just some ideas half-thought-up while not completely awake. -- Hoary 14:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, but there is a problem that needs to be dealt with — not with how "major" a country is, but with how major a chart is. Pop music seems to generate a train-spotter's heaven of charts, statistics, etc., and you could probably find some chart somewhere on which just about any record made it to the top (this is esepcially true in the U.S., from what I can see). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

But there's a case for saying that how "major" a chart is depends on what you're describing. (Part-analogy: the inch is not a major unit of length, but it is major when describing the [idealized rather than actual] diagonals of telly and computer screens.) How about a limit of X charts per nation (or geographical area, language-group, etc.) per song? X might equal, oh, three or thereabouts. -- Hoary 09:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Relevant Songs"

I don't know why we need so many arguments-for the most part this seems pretty straightforward. I understand that having TOO many songs just gets kind of pointless, but people should just use common sense. Obviously, a Japanese import limited edition Sex Pistols B-side is probably not going to merit much of an entry and if people are dumb enough to go through the trouble of putting up one line about it fine-just delete it. But it seems like it is a bit unbalanced the other way as well. I mean, really, the Beatles were good, but do we really need reviews for, like, 1/6th (or something) of the entire Beatles catalog? That's 60 songs. A but much if you ask me, considering there are three entries for The Smiths songs and none for Fugazi. Does "Think For Yourself" (which is probably only the die-hard Beatles fan would acknowledge as a "relevant" and "successful" song) really merit an entry, when songs such as "This Charming Man", "How Soon Is Now", or "Wating Room", all considered groundbreaking and excellent have NO entry? Probably not. Yes, a die hard Beatlemanic or Sex Pistols fan or Smashing Pumpkin fan could probably write paragraphs upon paragraphs about every song their band has ever written. But is it nessecary? No. Just use common sense people.

You know what, maybe that's because nobody has bothered writing about the Smiths songs! I love both bands and I certainly feel that the Smiths have written some notable songs, but Wikipedia articles don't appear by magic. Get writing! --kingboyk 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Songs

I notice that your WikiProject has not set down any guidelines for song notability yet. I was hoping to consult them as to the notability of the song Vive la rose, which I have nominated for deletion. Has any discussion occurred yet as to what makes a song notable enough for its own article? (I brought this up earlier on Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and they suggested I bring up the discussion here.) --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would rather judge notabilitly by the impact of a song on human culturre, not a result in chart system made by and for record companies. Alf 12:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Alf but I don't think this can be defined, or even judged, well enough to be a primary criterion. What I think we should not use is "any song by any performer who meets WP:MUSIC". Otherwise we'll have a couple of hundred articles on "St. Louis Blues", a hundred on "New York, New York", and so forth. Barno 00:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for notability

I'll start adding some suggestions for notability below. Comment on them and suggest new ones. --Moochocoogle 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Initial suggestions for notability criteria:

• Has appeared in the Top 40 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country.

  Probably the most obvious of criteria. Is Top 40 high enough? Maybe only the Top 20? --Moochocoogle 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Top 40 is problematic. Those rating lists are heavily criticized as skewed by commercial interests. Then again, maybe it's not too important. It's not the only criterion so a song can be notable without making the chart. More significantly, the chart is a snapshot in time. A single appearance on the chart is not sufficient in my mind to establish that we can really write a quality encyclopedia article. The song have to be on the chart for multiple periods of time. Even then, I'm not sure that would be enough. The first guideline for artists currently reads "Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart..." and that's sometimes challenged in VfD discussions as too low a bar. If we question whether a one-hit wonder artist can be included, I certainly don't think the artist's song should make the cut. I don't yet have a recommendation for better wording, though. Rossami (talk) 17:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I would lean more towards Top 20 than 40. How often are music charts updated? I know Billboard in the US does it every week, but what about in the UK and Australia and such? I would say it has to remain on the charts for an extended period. A #39 hit for one week is so flash-in-the-pan that I'd say not notable (possibly the same for a #19 hit). I would prefer something like Was a Top 30 hit for at least one week, and remained in the Top 100 for at least eight weeks). That's a bit more confusing and leads to some vagueness though (do all nine weeks have to be in the same country?). However, a song that was only a minor hit for one week would probably have very little verifiable info about it (assuming there was no other reason for notability), so this argument may be academic and pedantic.Tuf-Kat 22:49,?(null) Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

We have plenty of veteran contributors who would vote "keep" on just such topics. I would rather see "top-selling single for the year", but that would be far too restrictive for many reasonable editors, not to mention Everyking. Barno 00:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like you guys' opinions on this. I just created the article Love Bites (Def Leppard song). I took the liberty of doing so because there was a disambig page called Love Bites and that was what I was linked to from Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 1988 (USA), and the Def Leppard song was listed on that page. However, I myself doubt its notability. It was a #1 hit for one week, which should certainly be a different case from being at #19 or #39 for a week. I'm not sure how long it stayed on the chart, however. I think of all the criteria listed, this gives the most weight to the justification of the creation of such a page, although it could also be argued that Hysteria was a very notable album (the very is the one to argue about). I know bringing up such an example (a request, to boot) may not be appropriate in this discussion but I'm quite sure there are more songs like Love Bites out there with similar circumstances with regard to notability that may or may not have been created, and the notability of which will be discussed in the future, so it might be worthwhile to set a precedent with this article. P 15:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music.

  Quite vague but I think it makes sense. I guess this would be justified in the article. --Moochocoogle 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I agree. Vagueness is unavoidable. Tuf-Kat 22:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Is any song from a very notable album.

  I have noticed that there are articles on half the songs from The Beatles' later albums. They're generally good articles and as the albums are so famous the individual songs are very much notable. Obviously this raises questions about what makes an album very notable. --Moochocoogle 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I disagree. The Beatles albums are a special case, and the songs are split into their own articles because the album articles are so long. Many of the songs undoubtedly deserve an article on their own. Suggest rephrasing to Is from an album that has grown large enough to warrant splitting, and there is talk page consensus that separate song articles are appropriate. Tuf-Kat 22:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

  The Beatles are probably a special case. Practically all other acts should be bound by Moochocoogle's suggestion.

  Yes, that does make sense. --Moochocoogle 17:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Any song that has won a major award.

  Not too controversial --Moochocoogle 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I assume the Grammy Award for Best New Song would qualify, but what about the Grammy Award for Best Ethnic or Traditional Folk Recording? I don't know -- that's an honest question. Tuf-Kat 22:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

  Well I copied this one from the album guidelines and, to be honest, I don't know either. --Moochocoogle 17:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These are all fine by me. However, we're missing a broad category, something like "standards". Under these criteria right now we would have Happy Birthday to You or Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. I'm not sure how to word the criteria exactly, though. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was going to propose any song more than fifty years old and still widely performed, and any folk song with a verified history of more than 100 years (assuming there is enough known about it beyond the title and time period). I'm not sure if Happy Birthday or Twinkle Twinkle would qualify under these or not. Tuf-Kat 22:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday would qualify as more than 100 years (only the melody, though, not the lyrics) and Twinkle Twinkle would make it by far. So would most of the famous Christmas carols, though probably not Hitler Has Only Got One Ball (assuming it's no longer widely performed). Tuf-Kat 22:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is coming at the question from the wrong direction. If a subject, in this case either a band or an album, is deemed encyclopedic, there's no reason not to include all relevant detail. If there's enough information about an album that it would overwhelm the artist's article, then it should be spun off into its own article. (Almost all of the time, albums are started immediately in their own articles, and that's perfectly ok since they'll inevitably be too large for the band's.) Likewise, if enough information about a specific song is put into an album's article, then maybe the song should itself be split out - I'd have no problem with a separate article for every song written by a one-hit wonder, provided that they're verifiable, nontrivial, and not small enough to merit merges. A forest of redirects is of course in order, pre-split. —Korath (Talk) 17:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that substubs on songs should be folded into the article on the album (though that doesn't work for single-based performers). However, I think it would be useful to have guidelines on what sorts of songs may need to have their own article. These aren't policy declarations, after all -- it's supposed to be something that will give people an idea of what kind of songs might deserve an article. Tuf-Kat 22:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's pretty standard (and I think a criteria for a WikiProject) to define notability guidelines. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Why do we need seperate articles for every song written bya one-hit wonder (assuming the person is not a notable musician in any other right)? It's just a waste of sever space. There needs to be some discrepency and a sense of order. --FuriousFreddy 05:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd kind of tend to disagree with the "inevitably" part of Korath's above statement. Especially because there are lots of relatively "unknown" bands/musicians that can have valid encyclopedic articles written about them (I favor "low" standards of notability for musical artists), but unless you're a member or intimate of the band I don't really see how there's enough info out there to create a full article on an album. By the same token, how much can you really say about most songs, Top 40 or not? Unless we copyvio and reprint the music and lyrics. . . .  ;-) My gut reaction is that very few albums and songs should have their own articles until "proven" otherwise by having a valid article written about them. OTOH, this may be totally impractical due to a proliferation of lists and categories and templates that organize album and song info. So Wikipedians may have to learn to live with "stub" articles on albums or songs that exist primarily for organizational purposes. Maybe the Guideline should mention this somehow. Soundguy99 17:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So how about Boyfriend (song)? At the time that I listed it for AfD, it was a one-line stub that said, basically, "The new single by Ashlee Simpson". Does a song deserve an article just because it's the latest release by some pseudo-famous pop star? That's not notability. If this is allowed to remain, then there are no song criteria except that every song by somebody who passes WP:MUSIC deserves an article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable point, but it hits a massive problem: being reasonable doesn't get us anywhere, because we face a number of passionate fans for whom their idols and everything they do are all-important. They want articles on the singer, each of her albums, each of her singles, and many (most? all?) of her album tracks, as well as separate articles on her awards, achievements, music videos, album covers, sales figures, and who knows what else. Descriptions of music videos are exhaustive (and exhausting), as is the trivia about spats with boyfriends, record labels, fellow "stars", etc. Moreover, all this has to be presented and written in the way the fans are used to from music journalism — the Wikipedia manual of style is irrelevant (as are normal canons of decent English; have you read the turgid, laboured, repetitive, and often outright ungrammatical prose in these articles?). And the fans are aggressive and hellishly stubborn.

I'm still fighting the good fight, as are other editors, but it's a losing battle at the moment. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a shrine dedicated to pop stars. I'd love to start a committe up, with moderator approval and administration, that would go through, clean up (or delete) the fancrufted articles, and dare anyone to replace them. (unsigned comment by User:FuriousFreddy. --FuriousFreddy 00:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Hi. Just wanted to convey my strong support for the principle that covers of a song should not have separate articles, but should be kept as subsections in the article for the song itself.  BD2412 ^talk 21:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

New proposal

We need clear and enforced rules for song article inclusion, because the fancruft is getting overwhelming. I agree with several previous suggestions, and also add my own:

• ONLY notable songs deserve articles. What makes a song notable? In most cases, a major and notable hit for its performer. Note that not every single or even every hit by an artist is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Every Ashlee Simpson, Mariah Carey, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson (no, not even Michael; do we really need a seperate article on, say, "Just a Little Bit of You"?) Joe or Jane Blow record that ever came out does not inherently deserve an article, and articles on their albums should never appraoch a legnth that would require such. No, Wikipedia is not paper, but it is aso not a depository for overinformation. The Supremes' "Love is Like an Itching in My Heart" was a #9 hit, but it does not deserve an article because it is otherwise not notable. The same could probably be said for The Temptations' "My Baby", for which I only created an article because I needed one for its (far more notable) b-side, "Don't Look Back" (if anyone wants to V, er, Afd the "My Baby" article, I won't miss it). (*update* I just redirect the "My Baby" article to its proper album, to hopefully establish precedent)Ike & Tina Turner's "River Deep - Mountain High" didn't make the Top 40, but it is still a highly notable song because of Phil Spector's participation, and the popularity it recieved after its original release.
  1. Logic should be able to dictate whether or not a recording is notable enough for a seperate article. A notable song article should be at least three paragraphs of prose that does not involve a summarization of chart performance or production credits. The article itself should tell us why the song is notable. Is it the band's signature song? THen it's notable. Is it a member of the band's specialty number? Then it might be notable, if it wasn't a hit or doesn't typically appear on one of their greatest hits albums, leave it out. Was it a number one hit? Then, yes, it's notable (I believe the Hot 100 editors are creating their own articles, though, for each #1 US pop hit). Did it when a major award? (A Grammy or AMA; we shouldn't be writing articles for songs that won a Source Hip-Hop Award, a BET Award, or even an MTV VMA, for that matter) Then, yes, it is notable. Is it on that Rolling Stone list of 500 songs that shaped rock and roll? Then, by all means, write an article for it.
  2. The idea of creating articles for every single an artist ever rleeased (or planned to release) is too much. For example, Mariah Carey's cover of "Do You Know Where You're Going To", a cancelled single release that did not chart and is otherwise not notable, does not need its own article. In fact, the original Diana Ross version doesn't need an article either (the Mariah Carey version somehow recieved an article first; the Diana Ross information was added to it, and then an editor split them in two). In this case, "Do You Know Where You're Going To" should not have an article of its own in any form or fashion. Footnotes in the articles for Mahogany (1975 film). Diana Ross (1976 album), and Mariah's #1s will suffice.
  3. As far as standards and other notable compositions that are 50 years old and older, those certainly deserve articles.
  4. I can't stress this enough: DO NOT create seperate articles for songs that are different recordings of the same composition. For problem cases like "I Heard it Through the Grapevine", where several people recorded notable hit versions of the record, we should create a custom infobox that explains that establishes the song's original composeres and performers, and then breaks down each notable cover (the infobox should litterally have sections labeled as such).
  5. A table for chart positions is fine, but I'm not sure that a list of all availab;le remixes and alternate versions is neccessary.
• Concerning "notable album tracks", the song only deserves an impact if it has influence and notablility beyond its existence as track whatever on My Favorite Band's Album. It had to have been highly controversial ("Ether" by Nas), a signature song ("Hum Along and Dance", as relating to the Jackson 5 version), had some sort of groundbreaking or widespread impact, or some other notable element other than "this is a song fro mthis album, this is who produced it, this is who played on it, and this is where they recorded it."

Any more sugestions, please add them on. We need to buckle on down on this now. --FuriousFreddy 05:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly with Freddy on #1 above. Is there something worth saying about the song? Many song articles I've seen just say Songname is a song by band on their album albumtitle. We should propose that any article with no more than that is a substub subject to speedy deletion. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"I Second That Emotion" --FuriousFreddy 16:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding #3, who's up for starting the article Satin Doll? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Let us not sit around and twiddle thumbs. Let's take action and improve this situation. --FuriousFreddy 01:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've moved all this to this subpage to coordinate efforts. At the top of this page, I've tried to summarize all the proposed guidelines with a note on why they may or may not be acceptable. Tuf-Kat 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I find a lot of this to be unacceptable. Especially since Freddy has a personal vendetta involved. OmegaWikipedia 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"personal vendetta?" I don't even know you. You could be, for all I know, my mother's preacher, or an award-winning humantiarian. I have no opinion of you personally, and I have no ill opinion when you write good articles on notable songs. I do, hwever, have an opinion about your edits, and it is that they do not fit the guidelines of the project and are not in the best interests of the Wikipedia as a whole. This is about establishing notability, keeping the encyclopedia accessible and readable for visitors, maintaining a neutral point of view, and not turning the Wikipedia into a repository for all existing information relating to female pop stars. This isn't about you as a person, and this isn't just about your edits. YOu're hardly the only editor making these articles. If I wanted a vendetta, I'd AfD every article you ever wrote, which is not only rediculous, but would also get me banned. --FuriousFreddy 03:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) Do you find the whole idea unacceptable? Or just the involvement of Freddy? Do you have a list of approved individuals that can participate? The first four guidelines don't even come from Freddy. Tuf-Kat 03:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I have to agree and disagree on some points. Some people are overdoing it adding album tracks - those should never be allowed (Some Mariah Carey album tracks should be deleted along with that Nas article). I think a single should have at least

• remixes
• music video
• or some decent promotional campaign of some sort

But I wasnt thrilled when someone added an article on some songs. OmegaWikipedia 03:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think remixes or music videos would be a very useful guideline except for relatively recent songs, though they are certainly pertinent. How would you want to word a guideline? Tuf-Kat 03:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There are far too many songs with a remix or a music video; I know unsigned rappers who have several songs with both. Notability should be established with other criteria. Based upon the above suggestions, here is a summarized proposal:

• • Any stub article on a song, regurdles of popularity or performance, that states only basic information (who sung it, when, on what album ,and how well it did on a chart) should be speedily redirect to a proper article on the album or on the artist. In fact, before writing a song article, it is always best to see if the song can be mentioned in an existing article. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not free web server for highly detailed and annotated discographies. Every song, not even every hit song, is not inherently notable just because it was a hit, and, therefore, every single by every artist does not need an article.
  • Any non-stub album on a song that hit the Top 20 on a major country's chart can remain without issue.
  • Any article on a single that charted below #20 on a country's major chart needs to establish notablility in its text: "it is so-and-so's signiture song", "it was written to help starving children in Timbuktu", "it is considered among their most notable by music critics" etc., something other than "the song was recorded like this, released like this, and charted like this." In other words, the record had to have done something to or for someone somewhere which makes it notable in its own right outside of its album. This also goes for album tracks (which is why Nas' Ether deserves its own article.
  • For the love of Mike, be careful about "getting too gushy about your favorite band". Things I see all over, like bolding #1's and Top ten positions, NPOV language, articles about songs an artist was featured on being more about the featured artist than the proper artist, articles about cover versions of songs being made without even covering the original (save for possibly one sentence), seperate articles on cover versions of the same song (orignal established precedent--and I asked about this when I first got here--is one article per composition, which doesn't seem to be unreasonable at all.), improper infobox color coding, and other things that reduce the encyclopediaicness (I hope that's a word) of the project.
  • I'm still not sold on including songwriters and music video directors in the infoboxes. Songwriters would get ot be a problem for a song with a lot of authors (say, a Wu-Tang song), and music video directors are only arbitrarially related to a song. A chart or credits list would work better and be easier to read, although this particular item is not a big deal (yet).
  • And finally, again I emphasize: ONE article per composition. The Jackson 5 recorded a hit version of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" in 1970, but it does not deserve its own seperate article; a passing mention will suffice. Seperate articles for every version of "Something" would not be a good idea, either.

--FuriousFreddy 03:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Feel free to comment, suggest, and add on.

Ditto to basically everything there, Fred. However, I think songwriters should be featured in the infoboxes for songs. They are, in my opinion, nearly as important as the singer/musician to the song, since it's their composition. However, when it comes to many members of a band or group, I think just the group name would suffice. For example: instead of crediting "The Red" to Pete Loeffler, Dean Bernadini, and Sam Loeffler; credit it to Chevelle. This happens often enough in cd booklets as it is, so I think it's acceptable for an encyclopedia. What really is important is that the level of biased contributions and fancruft be reduced. The whole Mariah Carey situation (not just her, there's others, I'm sure) just brings the credibility of this entire venture down. Volatile 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. The video of "Dreamlover" includes "the first appearance of Carey's dog Jack." There's no article about him. For The Emancipation of Mimi, "Wendy Williams asked explicit questions about Carey's sex life and the names of her breasts". There's no article about them (and we don't even get to learn their names). Much, much more could be added. (NB I'm not suggesting this.) Er, but why are we discussing this here and not on the "discussion" page? -- Hoary 08:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• shrugs* This is where the discussion got moved. I dunno if it should be here or there. Long as it's somewhere. --FuriousFreddy 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My only thing about songwriters i nthe infobox would be that the infobox would get too long for some records. I wouldn't mind the inclusion of songwriters on a case-by-case basis. Howver, they should certainly be listed by their ASCAP or BMI names, and not by any performance names. We should present songwriters' information in at least the same form of professionalism an album's liner notes would. And I wholly agree with the need ot bring fancruft down; what's the point of fact-checking, referencing, copyediting, and so on to write credible articles if we can get away with fancruft? If that's the case, then I'll write up an entire detailed Dru Hill discopgraphy, compelte with notes on what color Sisqó's hair is in each video (I'm not going to do this, BTW). --FuriousFreddy 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

About the proposed guidelines above

The one about "if the article becomes over long or imbalanced" (not numbered) is sort of iffy. It would be very easy for an editor to go into extensive detail on a song in order to secure a position for it as a seperate article (indeed, that is part of the issue here to begin with). Also, a section on a cover of a song that is not the most notable version of the song should not be longer than that on the most notable version. Succinctness needs to be at play here, and so should balance and a neutral point of view.

Also, #3 is potentially problematic as well. If an album is truly notable, shouldn't its article be long enough to detail each song on it (unless the album is made up of more than one disc, record, or tape)? #5 and #9 should require attribution in their articles; otherwise they should be subject to speedy merging or speedy deletion. As far as #7, an artist's signature song(s) is/are reasonably determinable; All Music Guide often lists them sepeately in their artist discographies. --FuriousFreddy 04:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Response #1

Ok, sorry for the hasty and curt responses before. That being said, let me expand on some things. Freddy, I don't know you personally either, but your behavior here is questionable, and I do think you have some bias against some articles.

You've made comments in this past complaining about the lack of coverage of the articles you do of older soul/R&B music. Fair enough. But then you go on to bash the Beatles and contemporary pop music (like Mariah Carey). Now what is that? And then you go on to defend your actions by stating that its fancruft" because its pop music. Freddy, instead of taking out your anger at other articles, why dont you get over yourself and do something?

When I came here, there weren't many pop music articles. Did I whine and complain? No, I made the articles. And If no one helped me, that'd be fine. But I did not take out my anger on other articles. I did not go "theres no reason to be over 100 articles on the Beatles but not one for Mairah Carey". I did it.

You've complained about Mariah Carey time and again, and guess what? You listed several of her articles to be deleted. And then you claim "oh, its fancruft, its pop music". What it seems to boil down to is you being jealous of there not being enough coverage on older soul/R&B music and taking it out on comtemporary music. You even had the nerve to order someone to stop doing his pop music articles and to do a soul/R&B article! When people want an article to be done, they make one, they don't go cause drama on other articles. I hope I'm being eloquent right now, and dont express things the wrong way, but all this nonsense is getting me a bit peeved. Stop being jealous and do something about it.

Tuf-Kat, considering this is a proposed guideline, does Freddy have the right to list the articles for deletion? When this policy gets passed, then of course do that, but Freddy was premature and shouldnt have done that until the policy got passed. Also, O Holy Night was already listed for deletion, but survived. So it really shouldnt be listed again. OmegaWikipedia 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not the place for legnthy discussions of what you think of someone else. Take that elsewhere. I will reply to this on your talk page. --FuriousFreddy 02:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that every single (but not every song) by a notable band or performer is artist. I am thinking about pop music. But people should start writing about them first in the article about the band, or in the article about the album. The exception to this rule are cover versions, I am uncertain about them. Basically my idea conforms with the original proposal. If someone complains about fancruft, I have to say that Wikipedia has plenty of mathematics-cruft and hobbyist-cruft that only a tiny minority understands. And I have nothing against it because the minority has clear ideas of notability in their field.-Hapsiainen 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

But articles shouldn't be written for the minority; they should be written for the majority. Wikipedia is not a fan site. I don't think the Hasse–Minkowski theorem article is crufty at all; the oragami one is a bit unneccessary. However, two wrongs do not make a right. If I knew enough about math and origami, I'd know where the cut-offs should be at, and be working to fix those articles up. However, I don't. I do know a lot about music, and I know enough to tell you that every single by any recording act, reguardless of their notablility, is not inherently notable. Many of the pop-music song articles consist solely of (elongated) analyses of chart performance and synopses of the song itself, any music videos, and long lists of remixes and chart data. That's what I'm talking about when I speak of fancruft here: excessively long articles filled with trivia, point of view language, and other problems. --FuriousFreddy 00:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I said they are rights, not wrongs. I used the word cruft tongue in cheek. The Wikipedia deletion policy states that bias in articles should be fixed, not deleted.

I do know about pop music, and more that an average person about mathematics and origamis, too. You can't say your opinion is right because you know a lot about something, since your opinion is a value judgement. I have noticed that this looks like an inclusionism vs. deletionism controversy. It is impossible for the notability guidelines to conform both of the views. I'm starting to think that instead of rule 6 or a stricter rule the guideline should only admit the disagreement and have a list of precedents. -Hapsiainen 11:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, bias in articles should be fixed, not deleted...but the point of this conversation is the neccessity of the articles in the first place. As far as inclusionism vs. deletionism, there wouldn't be an issue if we had clear, defined guidelines It's the same reason we don't allow articles on every single last garage band that wants an article. We do not need articles on every single last song such-and-such ever recorded, reguardless of who well (or not) they are written. Not every single is notable because some singles are just released, just get played, and just go away. They win no awards, they don't have any majori mpact on society, and you can't say anything more about it than providing catalogue information (singer, date, label, chart performace, sales info) and descriptions of the song (and/or its video). Also, even if that is all of the information in an article, that information shouldn't be several paragraphs long, detailing each and every chart such and such's song appeared on. That is extremely excessive. --FuriousFreddy 22:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if there were clear, defined guidelines, people could criticize them. Think about a significant part of people criticizing them. The situation wouldn't be clear at all. Did you notice that proposal would exclude the chart perfomance and recording credits when counting paragraphs. Are there other possible "bloat" paragraphs, which could be defined? Just in case, I have to remind the others that people have different ideas of bloat. For an example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song)) For FF I have to ask to not use "we" about yourself, because you represent only yourself. And you can't change my ideas of notability by repeating yours. --Hapsiainen 16:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not only representing myself. This isn't about me; this is about the improvement of the encyclopedia as a whole. If you read that AfD vote history, you'll notice that the same little click of Mariah Carey fans and/or blind "keep" voters are the only ones voting ot keep that (highly unneccssary) article. People can criticize guidelines all they want to; that doesn't mean we still don't need them. A lot of people don't seem to understand what notabpility means in terms of encyclopedic writing, and are just prone ot want to include everything. An article like one about a Mariah Carey song that is not only a cover of someone else's song, but is a non-notable failed single that could be quickly and easily discussed elsewhere, is the exact reason why we need guidelines: to prevent this kind of thing from continuing before the Wikipedia becomes the Pop Music Fan Wiki. --FuriousFreddy 11:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Singles and Album tracks getting articles

I'm responding here instead of on the proposal page. It seems to me that "just use common sense" isn't working out well (see Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song)), but also that there's not a clear community consensus on the issue (see that article's AfD). As I mentioned in the AfD of You Give Good Love, moving the song information into their own articles leaves the actual album article looking like, well, a marketing report (see Whitney Houston (album)). Furthermore, because there is often rather little to say about singles, singles articles are being inflated by having paragraph-long discussion of individual reviews of that single (see this edit of mine for example). I'd like to encourage as much as possible that guidelines for articles about songs should never starve the album articles for information, and to strongly discourage fan-forum-like analysis of individual reviews. There are FAs on singles, and I definitely think Wp is enhanced by them. But right now we seem to be losing track of the Encyclopedia mission and robbing the larger internet of brilliant, devoted fansite creators. Not ideal. Jkelly 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wholly agreed. The only acts that should emphasize singles over albums are older singles-based acts. Nearly all of the articles on singles in the female-pop-muisc area of the project could easily be cut down, merged, or outright deleted. The problem is that the people who make them, while well-intentioned, don't understand the WIkipedia standard (or the encylopedic standard). Most of them even take it as a personal affront when anyone attempts to try to cleanup or cut down any of them (one user accused me of nominating some of those Mariah Carey articles for deletion because I did not like her, which is not true). Truth be told, they aren't the only obsessive fans here (see The Simpsons and related articles). --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's definitely worth pointing out, and I have a lot more sympathy for the "article on every recording of every song" viewpoint than I do for the television-, video game- and card game-, um, over-representation on Wp. Another thing worth pointing out is the very interesting response that User:Capitalistroadster made here to our conversation about the issue. A different view on the subject than mine, perhaps, but I was very pleased to read it, because it was a much better entry into a real conversation about our goals here than what I've encountered so far. Jkelly 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My take on Notability and Music Guidelines songs

Regarding articles on singles and songs, I think we need to take into account historical trends in music in assessing the notability of songs/album tracks for Wikipedia. I think that the suggestion of covering them in album articles is not always appropriate.

Firstly, there are notable songs dating well before the introduction of albums or even the gramophone record. Some national anthems such as "God Save the Queen", "The Star-Spangled Banner" "La Marseillaise" or even "Advance Australia Fair". Also, there are significant patriotic songs such as "America the Beautiful" and "Waltzing Matilda" became known before the widespread popularity of the phonograph.

Traditional folk songs such as the Sea shanty "Drunken Sailor" or "What shall we do with the drunken sailor" date back well before the development of the gramophone. Similarly , there are notable songs from classical music and opera dating well before the gramophone. Hymns and other religious ongs often date well before the introduction of the gramophone.

"Nessun Dorma", "Ode to Joy" and "Toreador Song" are all notable songs from classical music/opera dating before the widespread popularity of records. "Nessun Dorma" is probably better known than Turandot the opera from which it came.

Even when records were introduced, songs dominated for the first half of the century with albums out of the price range of many. Having a million selling song was an indication of success. Many popular songs became hits as a result of being featured in Broadway shows written by people such as Irving Berlin or movies. The songs in the Great American Songbook date from that period and many first saw light as part of movies or Broadway shows than on recordings. The first million selling record was "The Darktown Strutter's Ball" written by Shelton Brooks in 1917 see [1]. The first million-selling album probably dates from much later.

Albums came into their own in the latter half of the twentieth century. Looking at our List of best-selling albums, the heyday of the album in popular music is between 1965 and 2000. For example, the Whitney Houston album cited by user JKelly is a notable example selling 13 million in the US and becoming successful throughout the world. Nonetheless, the singles from that article deserve articles in my view as one won a Grammy and several topped the pop or r&b charts in the US and elsewhere.

Even so, overemphasis on albums in the rock and roll period could lead to an overemphasis on certain artists as compared to others. compare and contrast List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time with List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Soul artists and 1950's artists such as Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and Little Richard do considerably better on the second list while "classic rock" artists do better in the first.

One hit wonders are generally best known for singles not albums. Similarly, some genres such as dance music will be poorly represented if too great an emphasis is placed on albums as opposed to singles/songs. "Pump Up the Volume" by M/A/R/R/S from 1987 is a very notable song in the history of dance music going to number one in the UK.

The heyday of albums has passed. Since 2000, there has been a strong decline in album sales. This Reuter's article shows that album sales in the US are down by between 8% and 10% see [2]

In contrast, digital music sales through online musical services and ringtone downloads has more than tripled this year [3] with peer-to-peer networks progressively being closed down. While it still is only 6 per cent of revenue, there will be a clear move towards digital music distribution emphasising songs as opposed to albums. We should take this clear trend into account in assessing the relative importance of albums and songs. As well, more tracks are available for download apart from singles.

Does this mean we should have an article on every one of the two million tracks available on iTunes? No.

Editors should consider this before creating an article. Can it be reasonably expanded beyond one line with verifiable material other than song lyrics. Run-of-the-mill songs can't so they shouldn't have articles. Things that should be taken into consideration when assessing their notability.

• Is it a song with special significance such as a National anthem, well known national song such as a National anthem or national song. US State songs and any other provincial songs of note are worthy of consideration as well.

• Is it a traditional song of note such as a folk song etc that has been recorded or performed by a range of notable performers or been used in a variety of contexts ie movies etc?

• Is it a well known song from an opera, musical, movie, television show or radio performances?

• Is it a well known hymn frequently used in religious services or other religious song of significance?

• Has it charted in a large or medium sized country and how well did it perform on the charts? Have musical industry bodies such as the Recording Industry Association of America or the Australian Record Industry Association awarded it platinum or gold status in the relevant country? Has it been downloaded from legitimate pay sites a significant number of times - "Hollaback Girl by Gwen Stefani recently became the first song to achieve a million legal digital downloads see

[4]? Has it been widely used as a ringtone? The "Crazy Frog" ringtone became the first ringtone to top the Australian and UK charts?

• Has it won or been nominated for a significant award recognising songs ie Grammy, Juno, ARIA or Brit awards for example? Has it been nominated for or won awards in significant genre awards ie Country Music Awards. Has the video been nominated or won a MTV Video Music Award?

• Is the song of general interest to the public as shown by discussion of it in newspapers, books and websites? Is their verifiable information available about how it was written or produced for example?

• Has the song been listed as a significant example by a respected source of its type see Rolling Stone lists mentioned above The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll or Q Magazine lists or the Triple J Hottest 100?

• Has the song been used in other contexts? Have other acts achieved success with it when they covered it? Has been used in movies, television shows or on notable advertising campaigns? Even use in sporting events - "You'll Never Walk Alone" first appeared in Carousel in 1945 was covered by artists including Frank Sinatra, Elvis and Patti LaBelle. As a result of being covered by Gerry & the Pacemakers and topping the UK charts became the anthem of Liverpool F.C.

This is the sort of historical information that establishes notability. For that reason, we should have one article per song with sections if necessary to discuss notable versions by particular artists so that the reader understands the history of the song. We shouldn't have an article on Whitney Houston's or Jimi Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner. Both versions should be covered in the main article. This doesn't apply for different notable songs with the same name - "God Save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols should not be merged with the British national anthem for instance although they should be cross-referenced.

What should an editor do if he or she considers that a song doesn't meet the above notability criteria. He or she should:

• Put the information on the relevant article about the album if that is the best place for it;

• Put the information on the page for the relevant opera, musical, film, opera or television show if that is the best place for it.

• Put the information in the article for the relevant artist, songwriter or composer if that is the best place for it.

Capitalistroadster 09:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say, other than that the above makes several very good points, and that, if we are going to go forward in trying to establish some guidelines as to which songs should get articles, we absolutely need to take into account a number of factors, including changes in the industry through time. I think the difficulty is going to be coming up with something that makes sense, is flexible enough to handle things like "Hollaback Girl", while setting a standard that ensures Wp doesn't become free fansite hosting. It may be that I am overly interested in some sort of firm standards because of recent events, and I should be taking a longer view, but I'd like to see something that is the equivalent of "Fails WP:Music" so that we can start cleaning up a little before somebody decides to devote weeks to making individual articles on every song by Spandau Ballet and Kajagoogoo. Jkelly 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jkelly. I'd love for there to be firm standards on songs, but I have grave doubts there will ever be consensus for such a thing. I guess one issue is that song articles should really only rarely be deleted -- normally, they'd at least redirect to the album or something. Capitalistroadster makes some good points about songs from the pre-album area that are worth considering, though I'd be fine with just coming up with guidelines on modern songs. When was the last time this has been issue for recordings from before 1965 or so? (That's a serious question; I'm sure it's happened, but can't think of any examples) Tuf-Kat 04:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Capitalistroadster had to save "Drunken Sailor" from an AfD. Jkelly 02:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Singles that aren't actually singles

How about "Say Somethin'", which we read is "an aborted single [...] whose future is in a state of jeopardy"? Of course a song doesn't have to be a single in order to be notable, but I'd have thought that a song does have to be sold or promoted as a single to be a "single". In the lyrics, Snoop proposes a joint visit to a rest room floor for a quickie. Whether or not Carey accepts is unclear. -- this admittedly has a certain cheesy, tabloid appeal. Other notability is hard to find. The song recieved enough airplay in Japan to reach number eighty on the Tokyo Hot 100; but 80 is a bit underwhelming and I think "Tokyo Hot 100" is actually just "Tokio Hot 100" [page in Japanese], a phone-in-based chart (interspersed by lots of commercials for Sapporo Beer) for Chris Peppler's program of the same name on a single radio station, J-Wave. -- Hoary 08:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The "vast" majority is wrong

There is no consensus that the "vast" majority of songs don't need articles. There is a lot of support for singles having articles, and the ratio of singles to albums is quite high. Kappa 01:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, frankly, even though this wording of the guideline predates my involvement here, I agree that the "vast majority" of songs do not need articles. For one thing, creating these articles impoverishes album articles (see Like a Virgin and Like a Virgin (song) now that I moved all of the info about the song into the article about the single). In any case, there are ongoing discussions about this. The conversation directly above from this section seems to have died down, but it is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pop_music_issues. Jkelly 01:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• You don't have to take it all out. 2-3 sentences per single would make a nice narrative and help people decide if they want to read the specific article. Kappa 01:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

True enough. It would have made sense for me to leave a sentence or two in, you're quite right. I'll go fix that. I continue to assert that something like 90% of the songs ever recorded do not need their own articles, and that is a "vast majority". I further assert that people are not currently showing good judgement about what songs to make articles for, and I would prefer to see even stronger discouragement in our guidelines about it. Jkelly 01:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? As a rule of thumb, I try not to write an article about a song that doesn't stand out as being among an act's most important works, or that didn't have some sort of an impact on mainstream pop culture beyond "it was a hit".--FuriousFreddy 02:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well I write articles about singles if I think there's something interesting to say about them, which is usually influence on another artist. People interested in that info shouldn't have to wade through an album page to find it. As I've said before, singles are more notable than albums because they have more of an identitiy of their own. Kappa 02:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, Kappa, do you know how many songs there are out there? Do you think anywhere near 10% of them have enough "identity of their own" to write an encyclopedic article about? In any case, while you and I seem to have differing ideas about what WP:NOT means, it's not your judgement I'm worried about. Jkelly 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

singles have more of an identity than albums? That's hardly true for most music released in the modern era. And how long could a reasonably written and maintained album page be where someone has to "wade through" text to find information on a song? --FuriousFreddy 18:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My own guess is that well over 99.9% of songs recorded don't merit articles of their own. Certainly the percentage is a lot higher than 90%. Arguably, 90% of those that already get articles in en.wikipedia don't merit articles of their own. -- Hoary 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Very true. We have so many articles on songs that read like marketing reports and fan pages. --FuriousFreddy 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think pretty decent proportion of recorded songs by notable artists have an identity outside the album they are on, and should ideally have separate articles. This includes all singles. Kappa 03:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The overwhelming majority of singles have no notability beyond a recitation of catalog information, synopses of lyrics or music videos, and chart performance. To write articles on every single by any artist would lead to a glut of low-quality articles with no chances of expansion. It simply isn't sensible, unless, of course, you want to write articles for each and every single James Brown ever put out. This is an encylcopedia, not a music catalog, and a song needs to be important beyond just "being a single" to warrant having an article written about it. --FuriousFreddy 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Reinvention

Okay, see the new proposal. I put the standards in two categories, one automatically conferring notability and the other indicating it. A song should meet at least two standards in the second category to be notable (assuming it meets none in the first). Comments? I made some executive decisions in tweaking the standards thus far proposed, does this upset anyone? Tuf-Kat 09:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

(I'm not supposed to be here--my leave of absence started today--but I saw this anyways). A few minor comments: (a) wouldn't number 4 conflict with numbers 1 and 2, or is it worded to be specific to that artist without requiring the song to have nationally charted (justifying, for instance, an article on The Monitors' "Greetings (This is Uncle Sam)") and (b) #8 would appear to justify an article for the sweeping majority of singles released in the last twenty years or so. By that standard, I should be able to write an article on, say, Torrey Carter's "Take That" (you might have to Google both him and the song/video) and not have it listed for deletion...and I'm not certain that's a good thing.

I still also believe that the guidelines need to specifically state that there be only one article per composition (for that matter, we also probably need to revise our popular music single-centric "song infobox" so that it can be used for standards and other songs). I understand that certain persons insist upon seperate articles for cover songs (for no reason that, IMPO, makes common sense), so as far as pop music goes, maybe (that's "maybe", not "definitely") we should compromise on that. But...there at least needs to be a set rule barring seperate articles on various recorded versions of anthems and standards (becasue, otherwise, we'll have literally dozens of articles about the same song).

My main and primary concern is that the music coverage doesn't turn into a Pokemon-ish wasteland of fancruft, which is where it's well on its way to becoming. An encyclopedia I'm glad to work on, but a wiki version of musicfanz.com I want no part of. --FuriousFreddy 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a paragraph about cover songs in the proposal, strongly suggesting that covers be merged. I agree that #4 might be a problem, so I've removed it -- The Monitors' song appears to meet only one of the criteria (presumably being a signature song), and so would probably not be notable. "Take That" looks like it would meet two (#1, #7) standards, and so would be a "candidate for notability". Tuf-Kat 23:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Standard #1? Which nation did it reach the Top 20 in? (it only got as high as 86 in the U.S.) So the song should definitely meet two of the criteria, and not just one? That seems reasonable. --FuriousFreddy 00:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, oops, I misread something on google. You're right, it would only meet one requirement. It's not really that a song should "definitely meet" two requirements -- there's not as clear a consensus for songs as there is for performers, so I allowed a little more wiggle room. If it meets three or more, it's likely notable, if it meets two, there's a good chance, if it meets one or none, it's unlikely to be notable. (And then the section at the top is a handful of guidelines that make a song inherently notable, like national anthems). It's not perfect, but it does provide a basis for going forward and could help AfD more objective and rational. Tuf-Kat 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping we could draft something more definite, like W:MUSIC. --FuriousFreddy 08:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Is notability as important as completeness?

I have been doing some work on Queen songs and had assumed it was a worthwhile goal that every single Queen song would have at least a short article. I haven't tried to achieve this, however - yet :) An Encyclopaedia should be a place to look up anything. The song "Jealousy" had no commercial success in the US, but why should that stop anyone looking for and finding information on it here? Fancruft is one thing, but a short "Jealousy was written by...featured...was in the style of...and had no success, but was played at concerts..." seems fair enough? It has been deemed worthy that every river in the world - notable or not -, every country - notable or not-, etc etc be included - why not every song by a major group? To tangentify further: every *asteroid* is listed. List of asteroids. Note even "Many asteroids are fairly ordinary and not particularly noteworthy. For a smaller list of "interesting" asteroids, see List of noteworthy asteroids." So yes, fancruft (gushing, POV, reviews, endless detail of chart performance etc) we can do without. But I think there is genuine value in having short informative pages on very large numbers of songs. Stevage 21:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to dodge any inclusionism vs. deletism question underlying this, and say that I find that this impoverishes album articles. If an article about asong is one or two paragraphs, aside from the introductory material that would be the same for every song on the album, putting that information in the album article makes more sense to me. Jkelly 00:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If the question is "should information on individual songs be in album articles rather than individual song articles" then I would probably agree, but suggest that individual songs in those cases should have redirect articles back to the album. That way, if for some reason the song does one day merit its own article, all the links are already set up. There is still a problem that information on tracks can get repeated on the artist article, the album article, the song article (if it's "notable"), and the single article (if there is one)...

So, are there objections to continuing to have short articles on "non-notable" songs, should these just be redirects to the album, or should they not exist at all? Stevage 13:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirects aren't really neccessary. It's not logical that someone would run a search on a Queen song without first running a search on Queen themselves. Having articles for every Queen song, when there are many important musical acts that don't even have articles yet, isn't of any use to making the Wikipedia a better and more balanced scholarly resource. Also, there's the issue of "if we do it for one, we have to do it for everyone," otherwise we have an issue with there being a point of view and a bias. So, if you want ot write an article for every Queen song, go right ahead, but only if or after you write one for every Carpenters song. But...you probably don't want to do that, nor do you really care if it's done or not. You see my point?

On top of all of that, most songs aren't notable enough for their own articles as they are. If a song article is nothing but a recounting of how the song was made, and how well it did, without explainign that it was, in some way, important and influential to the music industry, there's really no reason for it. Just write good album articles, and selected articles on the important singles and album tracks (if that number exceeds about 30, you might have a problem), and let's keep the encyclopedia balanced. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Queen fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every Queen song, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not.--FuriousFreddy 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the size of the album articles should be considered before creating articles about the singles. For example, Chris Brown's "Run It!" went to number one in the U.S. a few weeks ago, but I merged it with the article for the album it came from because it was only a paragraph long. I also find it annoying having to go through several articles to find out whether a single was a hit or not. I think that if an album article consists of only about two or three paragraphs of prose, then efforts should be made to develop it rather than spinning off single articles, and that the single articles should only be created if there is enough material besides chart and music video information to create a comprehensive article. Extraordinary Machine 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There's way too much emphasis on national Singles charts. The positions are really misleading if you don't understand the counting method used by a country's recording organization. For example in Canada, a single can place #1 nationally with less than 100 units sold in a week. Does that make a song notable, because 60 people out of a nation of 30 million purchased the song that week? I'd think not. The singles chart also tend to discredit the work of up-and-coming bands/artists from independent labels. It's kind of contradictory when such bands are considered notable per WP:MUSIC, yet their songs are not. --Madchester 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition to song guidelines

I note that the first released single by many recognised bands would not pass any of the listed criteria for keeping. Should these debut releases be added to the "acceptable" list? Grutness...wha? 09:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say no. Either the song is notable of its own accord by the existing standards, or not. If not, any notability which it gets merely as "Band X's first release" should be covered in the band's article, not as a separate article that will never grow beyond a stub. Also, there would be arguments in hundreds of cases whether to include a run of fifty home-burned CDs as a "release", whether to count a non-notable local studio's compilation as a "release", whether to count a track freely distributed online as a "release", and so forth. Barno 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I've expanded the proposed guidelines page using material from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Extraordinary Machine 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC response

Just came in after seeing this page listed on RfC. I agree with the comments above that most songs can't support entire articles, and that separating out songs impoverishes album articles. I'd love to see very high standards for notability, higher even than what's already here.

That said, what about songs that are used as jingles for popular commercials? That seems like a potential avenue to notability. For example, the Chemical Brothers' "Galvanize" wasn't particularly notable until Budweiser used it in a commercial that is running extensively in the U.S. during the Olympics. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Who decides?

Okay, so you've proposed a set of guidelines for determining which songs may have a Wikipedia antry and which may not. Great. Now there's one small problem, and that is the arbitrary nature of the guidelines.

In some respects, a little vagueness is good, as it keeps the guidelines flexible. On the other hands, it opens the door to ALOT of edit wars. Especially when you consider the sheer number of songs that could be debated. What constitutes a standard? What constitutes a medium sized country? Let's look at Canada, the second largest country in the world (by geographical area). It also has a relatively small population. Is it a small country (on the basis of it's population), or a large one (on the basis of it's size)? Also, consider that what you may consider to be an umimportant country may be very important to people that live there or are from there.

Consider too, that the anthems of these countries may give inisht into the politics of these nations. Romania's anthem (Wake Up, Romanian) and Moldova's (Our Language is a Treasure) are both indicitve of how the Romanians and the Moldovans see themselves and the world around them. Neither country is especially large. Romania is roughly the size or Oregon in the US, and Moldova is tiny. But the accession of Romania to the EU makes it important with respect to the direction of EU politics in the future. Moldova's problems with Transdnistria are partly due to a conflict with Russia. This is indictive of Russia's politics. So, while neither country could be described as a major player politically, or large by population or size, both are important to understanding Russia and the EU, two entities that are very large and of concern to alot of people. Now, if you want to understand how Romania is going to fit within the EU framework, it's useful to look at how the Romanians view themselves and their neighbors, who are (with the exception of Serbia and Moldova) existing or propective EU members. A way to get an insight into that is to understand their anthem. Moldova's identity crisis (are they Romanians, a separate culture altogether, or something in-between?) is revealed partly by their anthem. And this identity crisis gives insight into their relations both with Romania and Russia.

Speaking of geopolitics, the popular music of a culture reveals alot about how ordinary citizens view the world. By analyzing their music, we gain as much insight as we would from their anthem, flag, national foods, holidays, and every other aspect of their culture. Musicology is integral to studying the cultures of the world.

To conclude: I find these guidelines arbitrary and limiting to Wikipedia as a whole, as they would exclude important facets of the societies of the world. I would argue against their implementation, and urge others to do likewise. Wandering Star 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand something -- according to these guidelines, all official anthems are notable, and Canada, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and Moldova would almost certainly qualify as "large" or "medium-sized". I think the general interpretation of the same idea at WP:MUSIC is always taken to exclude only San Marino and the like. Tuf-Kat 18:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I intended to use those as examples of a greater point, and that point was that size is relative to whom you are speaking (I'm sure the Andorrans think their principality is quite big enough, thankyouverymuch). Also, even the tiniest of countries (have you seen a map of Moldova? You can drive from one end to the other (at the middle point east-west) in a little over an hour), through their interactions with their larger neighbors, can lend major insight into the world's great powers. Leichtenstein is hardly what you would call a giant, but their monarch's recent grab for political power in a country that is surrounded on all sides by the EU is indicative of the nature of monarchy as a political system in the modern West. As for San Marino, they have a charming anthem. There's very little about San Marino that isn't charming. And the fact that they are the first country to have outlawed the death penalty (in the world) makes a statement about human nature (as well as the nature of their people). Why not study a culture that made an ideological leap centuries before their peers? Wouldn't you like to explore the background that led them to this step, including their sense of identity as expressed in their anthem and their arts, including their music? And the story of how they sheltered Giuseppe Garibaldi (one of the greatest politicians of all time) during the unification of Italy tells you something about Italy's history, as well as Garibaldi's. And the fact that a tiny nation can affect the destiny of a great one. Wandering Star 21:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. What does all of this have to do with songs? Nobody's arguing that San Marino's a terrible place that shouldn't be covered in the wiki -- these guidelines only state that a Top 100 San Marino hit isn't automatically notable (if San Marino even has a music chart, which I rather doubt). It has nothing to do with the death penalty or Giuseppe Garibaldi. Tuf-Kat 23:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to understand why a person does a thing, you have to look at what inspires them, like their art. Their popular music and anthems are partly what drives them as a people. Leaving them posted on Wiki allows people to access them and study them for insight into their culture. Wandering Star 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have no problem with having a Wikipedia article about San Marino's national anthem, or any song which is as well-known in their culture as, say, Happy Birthday to You or Jingle Bells is in the USA. But a song that merely places on the San Marino pop music chart (if there is one) is not necessarily worthy of an article, and I would consider it presumptively much less notable than hitting the same chart position on the Billboard Hot 100 since the potential audience in San Marino is less than 0.01% of the audience in the USA. And, please note, I would not consider most chart hits in the USA to be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles anyway. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Songs I've contributed - how do these fare?

I've added stubs for five songs:

• Baby Elephant Walk
• Hell No We Ain't All Right!
• No Sex (In the Champagne Room)
• Ring of Fire (song)
• The Man Comes Around

Please tell me, how do these fare under the criteria set forth in the proposal? As far as I know, only Ring of Fire (song) is an obvious keeper, but in my estimation, they are all significant, some purely for their quirkiness. bd2412 T 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Based solely on the information in the articles, "Baby Elephant Walk" and "No Sex (In the Champagne Room)" both meet maybe one criteria (and therefore are "probably not" notable - IMO, the first is, the second not). "Hell No We Ain't All Right!" and "The Man Comes Around" don't meet any criteria AFAICT (neither seem terribly notable to me -- is there more to add?). "Ring of Fire (song)" meets at least four criteria and is therefore "probably notable" (and I agree it is). Tuf-Kat 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll note for the record that "No Sex (In the Champagne Room)" was nominated for deletion, and overwhelmingly voted to be kept "Baby Elephant Walk" is hard to pigeonhole - it is the only memorable thing about either the movie it was in (Hatari!) and the album it debuted on; it is well known and instantly recognizable, but has not gotten radio play except as a gag because it is basically a quirky short modern classical piece. "Hell No We Ain't All Right!", I would argue, has political significance - famous artists breaking out of their usual musical form to write a piece that expressly protests an event. "The Man Comes Around" would be the hardest sell under any criteria, but it was the title song on a legend's last album, possibly the last original song that he recorded, and... well... a damn good song. bd2412 T 02:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you counted TRL as a "music chart", "No Sex In the Champagne Room" would be a "good candidate" -- I think it would be reasonable to do that, though I would have said that no TRL song has ever not charted before (this article doesn't mention actually charting). If "Hell No We Ain't All Right!" has political significance, that would be a reason to keep it (just not really a musical reason). "The Man Comes Around" is one of my favorite Cash songs too, but I don't see any reason to consider it notable (judging from the article itself). Tuf-Kat 06:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I've merged "The Man Comes Around" into the album, American IV: The Man Comes Around. bd2412 T 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lesser Beatles songs

Whilst performing dab duties, I've hit two quite apalling articles on lesser Beatles songs:

• One After 909
• Dig It

--kingboyk 02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So merge and leave a redirect to the appropriate albums. Jkelly 03:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not without discussion and concensus. To do that would radically alter, say, Let It Be (album), which currently has no discussion of any individual songs (all of them are blue links).

Let me rephrase: Is every song by The Beatles notable, simply because it is by The Beatles? Discuss. :) --kingboyk 14:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some discussion about how to handle articles on individual songs. I do not think that the song being written and performed by a notable band, or contained on a notable album, neccessarily makes the song notable in and of itself. As far as the article Let It Be (album) goes, I don't think there is a problem in having only the notable songs blue linked. If something needs to be said briefly about a less notable song on the album, it can be metioned within the article for the album. Obviously, there needs to be some consensus on the guidelines that determine which songs on a notable album deserve a separate article, this is not something that only applies to the Beatles. --Cymsdale 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, although the Beatles are something of a special case. Even those who hate them would be hard pushed to question their supreme notability. --kingboyk 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but I don't believe that the notability of the band itself will have a trickle-down effect, increasing the notability of the songs themselves. At least not significantly enough to warrent every one its own article. --Cymsdale 14:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated one lesser known (and unreleased) song for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Parker (Beatles Song). I don't want to be accused of vote stacking (it's not as if I care greatly if it stays or goes); I've listed it here to further the debate. --kingboyk 18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A new Beatles WikiProject has started up at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. No doubt the issue of articles for Beatles songs will become a major topic there. --kingboyk 19:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this proposal

Okay, I admittedly work hard to keep as many music articles as possible, and while I think WP:MUSIC has its failings, I do support some sort of ground-level notability standard. Seeing as there's a proposal for songs, I took a look and I'm a little bothered by a few things.

• 1: Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country
• 2: Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months (need not be consecutive)

The problem with these are twofold. For one, many otherwise notable charts don't end at 20. Many countdowns are top 25, you have things like the Billboard Top 100, etc. Secondly, the "charted for six months" doesn't really reflect the realities of many singles-based music cultures, where songs don't chart for that long. I'd much prefer to do away with #2 entirely, and expand #1 to include the appearance of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, as it is in WP:MUSIC.

• Is the signature song of a performer'

How about "is a signature song? For instance, via this guideline, a song like R.E.M.'s "Country Feedback," a fan favorite but not a single, wouldn't make it as it doesn't appear to meet any of the guidelines set out here. By allowing it to become a signature song, with citations, it allows some leeway in people being able to make articles for otherwise notable songs.

• Has been officially released in at least one remixed version and/or has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network and/or was the subject of a major publicity campaign

Have we forgotten the AfD controversy surrounding Ace of Base remixes already? I'm inclusionist by nature, but this leaves the door open for any dance act to have every one of their songs have an article, which certainly isn't the intent. By leaving this off, it would be easier to limit it by notability as opposed to remix.

I'd add the following:

• Is a theme song for an advertisement, television show, or movie.

This could be worked into #10, but I think it's worth expanding for this.

Now, I honestly don't see why we're quibbling over songs and why people want to delete them. They certainly don't hurt anything by being there, nor do they reduce the quality of the encyclopedia by existing, but these are definite concerns if we're going to throw a guideline together. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't understand what you disagree with about the first one. This criterion is not designed to catch everything that ever charts. It's designed to not catch everything that ever charts. On the second point, I know it wouldn't be used often (and maybe the timeframe should be lowered), but I think it's relevant. Most songs may not chart for a long time, but songs that do are likely notable, even if their peak is low.
  • I'd be fine with that.
  • I don't see the issue here either -- if the only reason those songs were potentially notable was the existence of a remix, then they would all be "probably not" notable according to these guidelines.
  • I'm fine with that.
  • Tuf-Kat 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

David Bowie

See what I found: Category:David Bowie songs. Can you guys please hurry and enact WP:MUSIC/SONG into an inclusion guideline soon --- so we can handle fancruft and forever-stubs like this?!

See also Category:The Beatles songs (190+ entries), Category:Pink Floyd songs (90+ entries) and Category:Kylie Minogue singles (40+ entries). -- Gimme a reason to keep this

Why are they a problem? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Badlydrawnjeff on not seeing a problem. Some musicians are inherently notable enough that all of their singles should be included (Madonna, Minogue, Elvis) and some should have all of their recorded songs included Beatles, Floyd, Bowie, Dylan. This may show a bit of postmodern bias, but merging Dylan or Beatles songs seems as absurd as merging the lesser works of Mozart or Shakespeare (yes, I went there). youngamerican (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Why are they a problem? Let me be specific here then (instead of me creating multiple AfD noms):

1. Guidelines. Well I can see many of them (half?) not passing any of the proposed guidelines you guys have so far, e.g., not in charts.
2. Original research. What are the article's sources? Features or news articles in major media (See WP:V), slight mentions in album inserts, or fan hearsay? I suspect some are just fan reviews disguised as articles.
3. No expansion. Many of such songs will never grow beyond stubs. The paragraph on each of them are better in the album articles.
4. Not really Bowie songs, even. Many of them are just covers of obscure tunes.
5. Indefinite number. Mozart, Queen, Elvis and The Beatles are dead. At least we're certain they made X number of songs, and X is reasonably small to have an article for each.
6. "Inherently notable enough" This phrase is so ridden with systemic bias that, (ab)used carefully, would make WP:MUSIC/SONG stupid and worthless in any debate. (Humans are creatures that, if they kinda remember a tune, quickly vote "Keep notable" -- am I right?) So guys, sorry to say this, if you think this way, go end this wikiproject.

I don't know about you, but is a Bowie Blessing all it takes? -- Gimme a reason to keep this

---

1. Then we should probably adjust the guideline to allow for songs by seminal artists like the Beatles or Bowie to be included.
2. Irrelevant. nothing should necessarily be here without sourcing, so if sourcing is an issue, hunt it down or tag it for references.
3. So what if they're stubs? How do stubs hurt?
4. So, more of a reason to have the article. If multiple artists have covered it, that's multiple ways of performance, multiple eras, multiple sources. Songs with covers by notable people should absolutely be included in this guideline.
5. Okay...?
6. Isn't it also systematic bias to think that few songs are notable? Isn't that why we want a guideline, to find middle ground between people who want more deleted and those who want less? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Badlydrawnjeff, I invite you to look at Fanny Crosby, a seminal hymnist. Wikipedia is not paper, so it will have space for all her songs, since, as you say, individual articles can be made for all of them, no matter how short, unsourced, unverified or unexpanding. --Gimme a reason to keep this

I wouldn't oppose such a project, pending verifiable information. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia should not have articles on every song, even every song by notable artists. Something like The Mysteries is pretty clearly never going to be expanded beyond a few sentences of fluff, no matter how notable David Bowie is (even merging it into an article on the soundtrack seems doubtful to me, but at least better). The comparisons to Mozart and Shakespeare are absurd -- Mozart has had two hundred years of documentation, and Shakespeare twice that, meaning that there are scads more possible sources for every aspect of their career. Tuf-Kat 08:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If we add badlydrawnjeff's "seminal artist" as a criteria, we might as well close this WikiProject: Humans are creatures that immediately believe their favorite musicians are outstanding, and humans are creatures that, if they remember a tune, immediately vote "Keep notable". See List of Phish songs. Eventually when users click Special:Randompage, likely either they see a album stub (stubs don't hurt.) or a one-paragraph song article unedited for two years.

Nah forget about published reliable sources, album inserts are fine. Chart positions don't matter - a teen movie played it in a school dance scene. Forget about length, eventually someone will write that the refrain starts in the key of G. Or cite the first verse. Or list every concert or remix it was sung. If someone somehow-talented covered a song in a demo CD given away to, say, fifty people -- let's start an article! Upload a photo, of course!

Does anyone recall why "Wikipedia is not a web directory" is in WP:NOT? I don't know. Whatever it is, it built WP:WEB and therefore we don't list every single website, webcomic or blog. There's no policy for "Wikipedia is not a music directory" so -- haven't you checked lately?? -- that's what we have become. -- Gimme a reason to keep this

Two quick fixes

Two things I noticed: 1) To say that "meets one or more of the following" for notability, and then say that if it only meets one, it's probably not notable, that's a contradiction. I've changed that to read that it would likely reach notability, as most other notability guidelines would read it. 2) I added "film" to #10, because it doesn't seem sensical to not include films if we're allowing other forms of entertainment. Let me know if this is bizarre --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. youngamerican (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough real sourced material should be important criterion

I think a song's "notability" is too subjective to be more than a very broad criterion. However, how much real sourced material has been written on a song should be important. I've been writing articles on Bob Dylan songs lately (see Ballad of Hollis Brown, Changing of the Guards, Buckets of Rain, and more under Category:Bob Dylan songs) and I won't write an article on a song unless I have enough substantial and appropriate material to reference. I have a good amount of books on Dylan that study his work seriously and academically and will get more in the future. Thus, at least my articles avoid original research and fan club reviews. I think one should have some substantial and solid sources before writing an article on a song. It should not just say what album it's from and whether the song is instrumental or not; it should give musical and lyrical analysis taken from published material. Tix 11:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, Tix, but many people disagree. Many people believe song articles are exempt from WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. See the stalled discussions above. Being short, unsourced, fluffy and fanspeak are actually sanctioned. If someone notable (per WP:MUSIC) sung it, it will have an article here. (The album will, too.) So you don't really have to use material from your Dylan books. Writing anything you remember is fine. In AfD debates, that's how it has been. -- Gimme a reason to keep this

I do think that the project page should make a reference to WP:V and WP:OR, reminding people that notability is secondary to verifiability. I think that when it comes to songs, simply making sure there's enough verifiable information about a song to write an article about is actually probably a lot more helpful than the guidelines as they stand. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. My feeling is that if there is enough verifiable information about a song to write a decent article, that should in and of itself be evidence of notability. It would be extremely silly to delete a well-written, verifiable, sourced article about a song by a well-know band simply because the song didn't chart in the top 20 or fulfill whatever other standard we come up with. NoIdeaNick 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree (as I did above during the discussions). Why' write an article on a song just because it came out, if all it will contain is catalog info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FuriousFreddy (talk • contribs) .

I have added the sentences "If a song has a body of published criticism, the song should probably have an article on Wikipedia. Even if a song is otherwise notable, there is no reason to start an article which can only say the name of the song and who performed it." to the introductory paragraph and a link to the policy on verifiability in the preceding sentence. I don't think this should be reverted, but perhaps it could be improved. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why this proposal is unnecessary

Problems that don't require deletion - Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Although you'd think it'd be that simple, in practice, it unfortunately isn't...especially as more and more people start writing articles on musicians and all (and I mean all) of their singles, reguardless of notability. --FuriousFreddy 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Any subject can be boiled down to just the essentials. Hell, we can just take all 43 Presidents and put them in a comprehensive "US Presidents" article if that's the route we want to take. If there's information available, let's add it! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! If it's verifiable, let's have it! Merge is your friend for small articles. This rulecruft is getting out of hand. For great justice. 17:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Song Categories

I'm concerned about how all these songs are to be categorized. Some songs like Bob Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind have been recorded hundreds of times. I don't want to see it linked to the category of every recording artist who ever recorded it. This information is much better handled with lists. Having categories of songs for each performing artist is fine if the song is just linked to the performer(s) who wrote it or made it famous. If there is any subject in Wikipedia that needs a notability test it is songs. For this reason, I've recently posted a category of Waterboys recordings for deletion at WP:CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 10:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please! No More RuleCruft!

Enough already. There are plenty of guidelines, about guidelines about guidelines. There is virtually nothing that is verifiable that needs rules like this. Please stop. For great justice. 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy. So stop trying to make an incredibly huge amount of official regulations. Beno1000 12:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop the useless article cruft!

I strongly support hving notability guidelines in general. One problem with non-notable songs having their own articles is that there simply aren't enough editors to watch over them all for vandalism. Sure, you may have that nice assistant littly diddy you heard today is worth making an article about, and you have it on your watch list now, but who'll be watching over it 2050 or 2100? Someone could easily add libelous information about a living person into that article. Think of the 2100 equivalent of Bill Gates or John Seigenthaler, Sr.. Why libel them in their own article, when you can libel them in the article of some 2006 non-notable academic where no one is wathcing out for the vandalism? This is just one reason why we shouldn't have an article on every single item in the world. We need strong notability guidelines and we need them now. Johntex\^talk 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Remixes

Why is "has been officially released in at least one remixed version ..." considered a criterion of notability? Remixes are far from rare, and this criterion would give virtually all dance/disco tracks of the last 30 years or so a point toward notability. --Metropolitan90 00:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus that the guidelines should privilege a particular genre of music over other genres. If substantially all dance/disco tracks get remixed but fewer tracks of other genres do, the inclusion of "having a remix" as a criterion would lead to overrepresentation of dance/disco songs in the encyclopedia. (Since "has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network" is listed as an alternative in the same criterion, an even more likely effect would be to privilege dance/disco songs from the 1970s, before the rise of music videos and MTV, over other genres' songs from the same era.) --Metropolitan90 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay on this. Overrepresentation? Again, so what? I still don't see this as a convincing argument that it's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the remix clause is terrible; I actually came to the talk page simply to see if anyone else was as upset with this idea as I am. Every song ever has been remixed. Every Gorillaz song is not notable, even though they released an album of remixes (Laika Come Home) of pretty much every song on their debut album. Same with Death From Above 1979 (Romance Bloody Romance). Same with Sarah McLachlan, who has released two remix albums. Same with dozens upon dozens of other artists and albums. If every song with an officially released remix is notable, then millions of songs are notable. -- Kicking222 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would also like to add that I can think of several songs off the top of my head - notable and otherwise - that have been remixed, and the remixes - in comparison to the original unremixed tracks - are nothing short of musical atrocities, pandering only to a momentarily-in-vogue remix style and not such considerations as song structure, lyrical integrity and all that "artistic" stuff that is supposed to be included in the song article. For a "notable" example, give the Jam & Spoon's remix of "Blue Monday" on New Order's Retro a spin, then a glance at the fans' consensus on this thing (maybe try some Amazon customer reviews for a start). In my experience, not only is it arguable that songs that get remixed are not automatically notable, but also that the remixes themselves often reinforce that view, by often being incredibly generic and, for want of better words, piss-poor.

And let's not forget, there are fewer notable songwriters out there than there are remixers. There is doubtless a reason for this (I'm tempted to suggest we compare the fact there's a lot more people pumping gas than designing cars, but that would be unfair, since gas pumpers are always a useful and welcome addition to the forecourt).

So I don't think the above questions have been adequately answered. "Overrepresentation - so what?" is no kind of answer, since the "so what" is already answered by the very use of the "over-" prefix in the question.

If Wikipedia introduced explicit guidelines which deliberately over-represented e.g. dead white males, a response of "so what?" wouldn't really cut it, would it? So why should it be acceptable here?

If we're gonna have this "remix" clause, then you really have to say "notable remixers" and "notable remixes" - and then get into a debate about who and what those might be (note my above example - not all remixes by "notable remixers" are notable remixes, etc, etc. Unless by "notable" we also mean "notably bad").

Certainly, a come-one-come-all on this is illogical - why discuss a song's notability and not the remixer's credentials? Why does a remix by John Doe make a song more notable than a song that hasn't been remixed by some nobody or other? Surely it's still an unnotable song, but now it has an unnotable remix too? --DaveG12345 16:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Overly Tiny Articles

I've notice a large number of articles for songs that seem to just be needless. For instance, the song Change Your Mind by The Killers had an article that only said it was the 8th track on their debut album, Hot Fuss. Clearly, I think any rational person could have determined that Change Your Mind was the 8th track off of the album "Hot Fuss" by looking at the page for Hot Fuss. There are also tons of articles involving singles where all they have is the chart placement, and which album it came off of.

We should make clear that if all you can say about a song is stuff that is already represented by various charts on the site (for instance, many artists have charts stating which singles a band had, where they charted, highest chart position, and the album it came from), then there is no need to have it. --THollan 19:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge them back into the album articles, and leave the redirect. Jkelly 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that song titles with no released singles and no chart information should probably be merged, unless there's other information about it available. But if, for instance, "Change Your Mind" was a radio single, there's certainly tracklistings and release notes and whatnot that could be made into an article without bogging down the main article. So if it's one that simply has chart position, expand it. Add an infobox, do some research of international single releases, and expand. Problem solved. Stubs aren't bad things. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion for the proposal

I'm happy to find a proposal about this problem just as I was looking for a guideline. Generally, I believe splitting content across multiple pages makes it harder for the user to "collect" the information. I also believe splitting pages leads to less consistency, some pages will receive more attention than others and the topic as a whole ends up with gaps.

I have the following text suggestion:

Guideline intro:

A song should not have its own article unless it meets the criterias listed below. Instead, songs may redirect to a relevant article, such as the album the song was originally released on, or the performer in question. Furthermore, songs should only have an individual article if there is enough encyclopedic information for it to be spun off from a very long album article (see Wikipedia:Summary style) and there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. Song pages should be named: song title (song)

Additionally, a member of a band should not have his/her own article, unless the member is well-known by name outside the band's fan base, or the member has performed in another noteable band or has had an independent solo career, or is otherwise noteable per WP:MUSIC, and there is enough encyclopedic and verifiable material to warrant a detailed article.

Criterias:
(I've included those listed in the current proposal and voiced my agreement/disagreement with each)

A song is notable if it meets one of the following criterias.

1. Is an official anthem of a notable state, region, province or territory - Agree
2. Is a folk song, hymn or Christmas carol with a documented history of more than fifty thirty years. - Agree
3. Added: Has had an impact on society or culture outside of the artist's fan base, or has been adopted as a signature song of a noteable cultural, political or religious movement
4. Is a musical standard (e.g. a pop or jazz standard) - Maybe (I have a difficult time thinking of a song as a "music standard", also see 1 below)
5. Has won a major award - Disagree, doesn't mean much

A song may be notable if it meets two or more of the following criterias:

1. Is a song that helped defined a specific genre of music - Agree, I think "helped" should be removed, may overlap with 4 above
2. Is the signature song of a particularly well-known performer - Agree, although reluctantly
3. Is a historically notable song for being the first to do something interesting, stylistically or technologically - Agree
4. Is a particularly well-known song from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television - Agree
5. Has been placed on a "best of" or "most influential" list from a major music media source - Maybe (what's a "major music media source"?)

1. Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country - Disagree, charts are 90% marketing, doesn't mean much anyway
2. Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months (need not be consecutive) - Disagree, same as above
3. Helped launch a notable record label - Probably disagree, "helped" isn't enough IMO, such a song should be included in an article about the record label.
4. Has been officially released in at least one remixed version and/or has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network and/or was the subject of a major publicity campaign - Disagree, again, doesn't really mean much, besides there was a time when music didn't have videos/remixes.
5. Has been downloaded a high number of times through digital download websites - Disagree. Currently, access is more important than demand as many songs are not available online legally. Also, many companies keep sale figures for entertainment products a secret.

Guideline end:

The fact that a song is notable enough to deserve an article does not mean that each individual recording of a song deserves an article. Articles on different recordings should be merged into an article on the song unless that article becomes overly long or inordinately unbalanced.

END OF TEXT

A few songs I think are worthy their own article: We Are the World, Kumbaya, We Shall Overcome, Smells Like Teen Spirit.
See also: Charlie Parker
-- Steve Hart 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second the above amendments. They make much more sense than the current ones. --DaveG12345 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that a song is notable enough to deserve an article does not mean that each individual recording of a song deserves an article" Also agreed. For an example of what I think is a good article that merges all artists' versions of a heavily covered song, see "War (song)". Ironically, it also disambig-links to an article that I think is a typically bad example of a song article! :-) --DaveG12345 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Example - songs in Wikipedia

To serve as a background to the discussion: What follows is the hierarchy of Red Hot Chili Pepper pages (first four albums only). There are also some RHCP song pages not yet linked by album parent, see Walkabout (Red Hot Chili Peppers song)). Note that bad naming results in pages in WP with a different content than the user (probably) was looking for (e.g. Scar Tissue is a song's page) -- Steve Hart 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on Red Hot Chili Peppers:

• Red Hot Chili Peppers (main article)

  • Current members

  • Michael Balzary
  • Anthony Kiedis
  • John Frusciante
  • Chad Smith

    Former members

  • Chuck Biscuits
  • Jack Irons
  • Arik Marshall
  • Cliff Martinez
  • Dave Navarro
  • D.H. Peligro
  • Jack Sherman
  • Hillel Slovak
  • Jesse Tobias

    Former touring backup musicians

  • Rain Phoenix

    Videography

  • Red Hot Skate Rock
  • Positive Mental Octopus
  • Psychedelic Sexfunk Live from Heaven
  • Funky Monks
  • What Hits!?
  • Woodstock 1994
  • Free Tibet
  • Woodstock 1999
  • Off the Map
  • Greatest Hits (Red Hot Chili Peppers album)
  • Live at Slane Castle
  • Dani California

    .

• Red Hot Chili Peppers discography
  • The Red Hot Chili Peppers (album)
    • True Men Don't Kill Coyotes
    • Get Up and Jump
  • Freaky Styley
    • Jungle Man
    • Hollywood (Africa)
    • American Ghost Dance
    • Catholic School Girls Rule
  • The Uplift Mofo Party Plan
    • Fight Like a Brave
    • Me and My Friends
    • Behind the Sun (song)
    • Subterranean Homesick Blues
  • Mother's Milk
    • Higher Ground (song)
    • Nobody Weird Like Me
    • Knock Me Down
    • Taste the Pain
    • Stone Cold Bush
    • Pretty Little Ditty

Infobox's "Chronology" part of the problem?

I think a problem stems from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs's Infobox itself, and its use of a Chronology, similar to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums infobox.

For contributors not interesting in tracking down this discussion page, surely the inclusion of the Chronology is a red rag to a bull, encouraging people to create an article for every single a band released? Sure seems to be the interpretation of fans of e.g. System of a Down, AFI (band), etc., etc. (I'm not picking on these guys, they are just examples I have come across).

The Chronology's inclusion seems to demand that all songs released as singles by a band are automatically notable and require their own article, since the Chronology idea for any particular band becomes unworkable otherwise. Merging these one-line song articles up after-the-fact also automatically breaks any idea of a chronology for the legitimate notable songs that remain.

So, result of Chronology in the Infobox: one-line articles that say "this was their second/third/fourth single", to bridge the huge gulf between genuinely notable single #1 and genuinely notable single #7.

I think personally this project needs to decide whether it is about songs (in which case there should be no Chronology in the Infobox) or singles (in which case there should be a concept of Chronology). I think contributors are getting really mixed signals on this, but with the purging of Category: Singles by artist (not fixed or addressed on the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs page, BTW), I think the project should consider ditching the Chronology from the Infobox too.

In my opinion, looks to me as though Chronology is only there for intrinsically "notable" acts like e.g. The Beatles, where every demoed outtake is "notable"...</POV> ;-) But that sure isn't the way it is used in practice. --DaveG12345 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Every released single is notable. At the very least, it has tracklisting information and b-sides for the physical single, at most, chart information. The question is more about what non-single songs are notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposed guidelines sure don't say that. --DaveG12345 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And they should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. But, just to clarify, it is the proposed guidelines as they stand that I am commenting on - obviously if the guidelines said "all singles are notable" this would be a different discussion. But they don't, so it isn't.

And so I'm sorry, but I don't agree that "the question is more about what non-single songs are notable".

The question is about what songs are notable, period. And I believe a lot of singles (unnotable ones) contain unnotable songs. The proposed guidelines and this whole discussion seems to reflect that view too - otherwise there wouldn't be any guidelines project page, and this discussion wouldn't exist.

Since it does exist, I'm suggesting that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs Infobox itself simultaneously perpetuates the problem of too many unnotable articles about unnotable songs on unnotable singles. Any future and non-trivial notability guidelines will be unenforcable, whatever they turn out to be, as long as there's a Chronology on there.

Hope that's a bit clearer. --DaveG12345 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And we can discuss changes here, right? Since you brought it up, anything officially released should be included. That's actually the overwhelming standard as it stands. I'm not sure there's something called an "unnotable single." --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware it's the "overwhelming standard" as it stands - that's the point of my indicating it as a problem, it's surely what this discussion is trying to fix, not perpetuate. If policy was "every single is notable, go get 'em boys", then this project would be finished as anything worthwhile.

Of course, I can think of hundreds of unnotable singles. They're the ones that you can say nothing interesting about that couldn't be more usefully said in one line in the band's discography section. Sadly, many of them exist in Wikipedia as standalone stubs, just so that the so-called "Song Chronology" ain't busted.

Thanks for the comments, but I think we're pretty much poles apart on this, so there's little more to discuss. Will see what other folks think. :-) --DaveG12345 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about explaining how released singles aren't notable? If it's a released single, it's bound to have, minimum, artwork, production information, and a tracklisting. Most released singles have *some* chart information as well. Much more than one line in a discography. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, all right, if you insist.

The picture sleeve only became a regular feature of single releases in the late 70s, so artwork as a minimum is not quite right. Likewise, with declining singles sales and digital downloads coming more and more to the fore, artwork will doubtless decline again, and certainly cannot be assumed as a minimum for modern releases.

But I'm also not sure how much "useful" information a single cover imparts, since my first reason for looking up a song on WP is not "I wonder what the cover looked like". I'd find a different specialist site if I needed to know what an unnotable single looked like.

Production details? The producer? A column in a discography could handle that, certainly. Or are we also noting the minutiae of who designed that sleeve (if one existed) and who made the producer's tea, and so on. That's where it would stop being "useful" and start being "trivial" for me, I'm afraid. I'd find a different specialist site if I needed that level of minute detail on an unnotable single.

B-sides (if it had a B-side) and chart information (if it did chart)? Same table, same discography. This one here does a fairly efficient job of it. Much better than lots of these (for example) needlessly plugging unnotable gaps in an inessential "Song Chronology".

As I hope is clear, I believe unnotable singles are those that you can say nothing more about other than what's written on the sleeve (if it had one) or label (if it had one). There are millions of these unnotable singles in existence. I have hundreds back home. Even I know they're unnotable, and I bought 'em. My brother made two or three a few years back. Shall I type them up? (Don't worry, I ain't gonna, I don't think they are notable enough for inclusion.) :-)

Obviously, it boils down to notability. I think the proposed guidelines are getting close to a workable definition of notability. And I think the Songs Infobox unwittingly undercuts those endeavours. And I don't think you and I are likely to agree on these issues any time soon without repeating ourselves ad nauseam.

Let me jump in here.

I discussed this issue with some different people a while ago: the first of these occasions you can see here. In the end, this was one of the most well thought out attacks on this problem I know of, and they came up with a perfectly sensible alternate solution to the rather terrifying "chronology" solution you can see there. Check it out at What Time Is Love? — the chronology is omitted (here done with a subst'ed template, but easily convertable to the standard Infobox Single), and a singles navigational box is used at the bottom of the page instead.

The other discussion can be seen where I started it at User talk:Ericorbit#Singles, the next step, where I address this exact problem and suggest a non-"completist" approach; the other half can be found at my talk page, where he suggests "collectibility" as a criterion for creating singles pages. (See {{Erasure}} for the particular approach he took.)

However, I am still in the process of experimenting with this. I am currently in the process of attempting to create the Pet Shop Boys single chronology all the way through: some of them are easy to fill up with notable information (see Opportunities (Let's Make Lots of Money), Go West (song)), while others not as much (see Love Comes Quickly).

So, that's all the aspects of this I know of presented. I can't quite take a side in this yet, but do let me know what you think. –Unint 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I think Unint's suggestion is interesting, I don't think this approach would be feasible. Using "collectibility" as a criterion makes notability something to be determined by the fans, but, as I see it, the point is to find notability outside the fan base.

Looking at the songs listed I see good work (in particular What Time Is Love?), but I can't help thinking that in most cases these songs should rather be on an album's page. When songs have their own pages this takes value away from the albums. Example: The Pet Shop Boys single's page Opportunities (Let's Make Lots of Money) currently has more information than Please (album).

It's not the number of pages that are important, it's the quality and accessibility of the information. The main problem is that people feel like they've contributed more by creating a new page instead of a new section at an existing page. -- Steve Hart 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that every single released is notable represents, in my opinion, what's wrong with this discussion; that notability should be based on format and popularity, viewed through the prism of modern pop music. One problem with this approach is, as noted above, the fact that there are millions of singles out there, another that a song not released as a single could be just as notable as a single, and a third problem, and arguably most important, is that there's a whole different world of music outside the pop industry - jazz, gregorian, religious songs, the entire independent scene, etc, - with songs which could be just as notable as a heavily advertised pop single.

As a ground rule, a song should, in my opinion, be notable only if it has had an impact on (or represents) a particular culture or society, as already noted by Alf, FuriousFreddy and Wandering Star.

I agree that the chronology in the Infobox is part of the problem and that Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs should be updated and the chronology ditched. It still doesn't solve the question of notability though. (Btw, I would also like to direct the attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs, which could do well with a link to this proposal). -- Steve Hart 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Phish songs

I was wondering if someone would take a look at this list and the large number of articles there and mention whether they should or should not be allowed on Wikipedia. I personally don't think all of the songs need to be there, just perhaps a few notable ones. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)