Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 24

Deprecate BBC Radio in "release history" sections

I would like to propose that BBC Radio playlist adds be removed from and disallowed in "release history" sections on song articles. In contrast to a digital download, physical release, or radio "going for adds" date (e.g., via All Access)—which are all official releases by a record label—BBC Radio dates in these sections are merely BBC Radio adding it to their playlist on a particular day, when their playlist committee wants to. It is one radio station/network, not an official UK-wide release as is misleadingly implied in these sections. These sections should be consistent and contain official releases only. That's not to say it couldn't be mentioned elsewhere in an article's prose, but a BBC Radio playlist add date (or any one radio station/network) is inappropriate for mention in a "release history" section. It's just not an official release. I would strongly like to see all of them removed. Heartfox (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to add to this, it's quite possible that a song can be added to one BBC station's playlist at a different time/week from another BBC station (e.g. to BBC Radio 2's playlist one week and to BBC Radio 6 Music's playlist the following week), which is a good indication that this isn't an actual release date, as clearly the song would be available to all radio stations at the same time. Richard3120 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's exactly true as for the United States, some songs get released to Adult contemporary radio stations on one day, while a few days later they might be to Alternative radio, for example. Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for reference, there are over 500 articles citing BBC Radio 1 playlist alone, and this is particularly problematic because these are sometimes the only sources used for designating a song as a single, when it isn't even an official release! Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• A mere mention of when a song was added to their playlist in an article's prose is likely to help readers and assist in establishing when a song began receiving promotion in the United Kingdom. I also think it is notable in instances where a song was added by BBC before its release for digital download, as was the case with a couple of Meghan Trainor singles. However, it should be excluded from Release history sections as it isn't a "release date", per obvious logic.--NØ 04:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • But it is not the release date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, and I agree: it should be excluded from Release history sections as it isn't a "release date", per obvious logic.--NØ 06:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with MaranoFan. BBC Radio is a part of the song's promotional cycle, but it isn't necessarily a release date as an official single, and the article should reflect that. It should not be added to release history and should not have an impact on the |released= parameter in the Infobox, but it's worth a mention in prose. If there is an instance where a song's single status is determined solely by BBC Radio playlists, then that song would become a promotional single, as the song was added to a BBC Radio playlist (promotion), but it was never officially released or pushed as a single. Update: If there is an instance where a song's single status is determined solely by BBC Radio playlists, then that song would be listed as a normal song as it was never officially released or pushed as a single. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC) (updated 18:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC))
  • A promotional single still needs an official release to be classified as one, though, not just a radio station adding it to its playlist. There needs to be an indication of record label endorsement. Per The Guardian source linked above, record labels have no impact on the playlist committee that decides which songs get on BBC Radio playlists, meaning they should not be used for designating something as a promotional single either. Heartfox (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification, I updated my response D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it was added because people were desperately trying to search for reasons to call a song a single. Any song once released can be playlisted. There is no formal servicing to radio in the UK like there is in the US. I say that as a British editor and avid former radio listener. Yes there are times when playlists coincide with release dates, but also, radios do play songs other than those in playlists. So yes, in essence, I think it can be included in background/release sections but no in the release history or as the SOLE INDICATOR that a song id a single. The Official Charts company does produce a list of newly released singles including impact day releases - where a date is picked and the album track is promoted to specific date but there is no separate listing at retailers. In the streaming era, this is actually quite common. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Where should this be added to make it more visable for editors to quote this if necessary? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I would personally like to eventually make a form of WP:SINGLE? into a guideline. You could link to one of its shortcuts I guess; the outcome of this discussion is mostly there. Heartfox (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. To all the users involved in this discussion not only the radio dates of BBC Radio can't be added into the release history, but on the prose we can't have something like "X song was released in the UK radios on DMY", but something on the vein of "UK radio stations began adding X song onto their playlists on DMY", since it will keep the same problem saying it was released on DMY date, when it was only added on the playlist(s) (they have free will to do so with any song) as it has been claimed here. What's your take? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

SINGLE? would be the best place to list this. I agree, we should adjust prose if it indicates in any way that the UK radio release was a push. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I would personally never include it in prose either. There are other radio stations in the UK that may not be playing it, and I think it would be undue weight to mention one radio network, while for others we mention a whole country. Maybe if it was a low-key digital download/CD release in the UK only, and was also added to a BBC playlist, it could be mentioned in prose, but being so specific as to mention one radio network is really way out of the scope of any international single. Heartfox (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You said the radio release date could be added to the prose on the first mentio of this. Download and CD Singles are not even up to this discussion. BBC is a huge radio in the UK, not every network is going to add the song at the same time and genres are not repsented like in the US. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you're arguing? This proposal was to remove it from release history sections, that's why I said at the top it maybe could be put in prose, but I would not write in prose myself because I think it would be undue weight when it's not an official release. Heartfox (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. Just stating that in the first instance you said "That's not to say it couldn't be mentioned elsewhere in an article's prose" and now you are saying the other way around that shouldn't be on the prose either. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple- remove from release history and infoboxes. Include in prose but explicitly saying which radio station. That way, we're not saying all UK radio played it then etc. Also, worth noting that airplay doesn't carry the same weight as downloads or streams because airplay is not included in the official singles chart. Ultimately its not that relevant in the UK in the digital era. E.g. the biggest UK breakfast radio show (which also attracts the biggest audience in any slot) gets circa 1.2 to 1.5 million listeners (or 0.017-0.021% of the total population of the country). It's really not a big deal. Obviously not all of the population listens to music but its still likely to be a miniscule proportion of music listeners. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is true – there was a time before the internet when radio, especially BBC national radio, could really break a song. It's the reason "Donald Where's Your Troosers?" and "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" became UK top five hits in 1989 and 1991, respectively, years after their original releases, because Simon Mayo kept playing them on his Radio 1 breakfast show. It's also the reason Eva Cassidy became a major star after her death, because Radio 2 started playing her tracks. But nowadays the impact from going viral on a TikTok video far outweighs any playlist add on a radio station. So listing the date a song was added to a radio station playlist really isn't a vital piece of information for an article. Richard3120 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus to remove playlist adds from release history sections and infoboxes or should I start a formal RfC where these discussions would be better known? I don't want to start removing stuff and then get reverted, and some songs are currently classified as singles based on BBC Radio only, so the outcome would have pretty big impact. Heartfox (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Heartfox, there are sometimes other sources like those on the official charts etc. that support release dates. As explained above, there was something called "Impact Day" releases in the Uk where a song would be promoted to a specific date without any additional listing on spotify/amazon or retail outlets. I think its more nuanced - if there is an official source from the label or like the official charts calling a song a single and its evident it was promoted e.g. aa music video etc then its worth taking that into account. An RFC here might be best - lay out the options. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think label/Official Charts sources are totally fine. It's just the one radio station/network playlists being used (whether as the sole indicator or additional) that doesn't feel right to me. I will start an RfC shortly. Heartfox (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Promo CD singles

Can promo CD single be used as reference for release of CD promo single? I have never spot them in GA articles. Eurohunter (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It would only prove the existence of the promo single, it wouldn't show that it's notable, so you would need other reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Richard3120 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Then we couldn't do "Release history" section with digital releases and then how to source credits (writers, producers etc.)? There is also problem with such information when certain artist announces new single in social media but it's not cited by any external source and then when single is notable after release we couldn't add information about announce date etc. Eurohunter (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

But if it's just a promo CD, then it's not an official commercial release, so we can't give a release history. You might be able to get information about the date that it is added to a radio station playlist – this is what is being discussed in the thread above. You can usually source the credits from other places, like a parent album, or ASCAP/BMI databases. The important thing is, if the song is only a promo release and is never released commercially, then it probably isn't notable enough for an article – that's why you don't see them in GA articles or anywhere else. Richard3120 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: No I mean any standard notable singles so they has its promo versions. Eurohunter (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean when they were released as promo singles ahead of an official release? Unless there are reliable sources stating when they were sent out to radio stations, then I think you will have to leave this information out. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Yes but in majority of cases there is no news about promo CD similarly like there is no mention of digital releases or standard CD. Eurohunter (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That's because it usually doesn't have the same level of importance as an official release. Richard3120 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I think it would have no impact as in case of commercial releases in small countries or just release for any country where it not did not achieve success. Eurohunter (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Marilyn McCoo songs

There are songs that would appropriately be categorized as Category:Marilyn McCoo songs, a recently created category by User:JGabbard, but most of these songs placed in the category are just Category:The 5th Dimension songs. I don't believe I've ever seen songs in a category by lead singer. If any were notably covered by McCoo as a solo artist, that's one thing, but I'd like receive some consensus from the project that the 5th Dimension songs can/should be removed from the McCoo songs category. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it gets problematic if the singer is not explicitly credited separately on the song – for example, we'd have to list all the Beatles' songs under Category:Paul McCartney songs, Category:John Lennon songs, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not all 5th Dimension songs are Marilyn McCoo songs. Even if they were coterminous, the value of categories would be diminished if they merely duplicated discographies. But they have a higher purpose, connecting and delineating all songs on which an artist can be heard, especially if they had appearances under various or minor billings. As far as uncredited singers, we have many articles on which they are categorized. Category:Elton John songs, for example, is rightly included on both "Whatever Gets You thru the Night" and "Bad Blood," songs which could easily be overlooked as being among Elton's works if not included as such. - JGabbard (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe they should be categorised as Elton John songs, and that category should be removed from those article in my opinion. You can't have categories based on whether an artist is heard on the song – that's a minefield when you come to the issue of samples. Should "Blurred Lines" be categorised as Category:Michael Jackson songs and Category:Tag Team (group) songs? And it would make the article for charity singles like "We Are the World" and Do They Know It's Christmas?" overloaded with categories, for every artist appearing on the record. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we are getting bogged down with examples which merely muddy the waters in these circumstances. The point raised by User:Richard3120 is that Beatle songs are not additionally categorised by each Beatle-performer. User:JGabbard then inflates this by giving examples where different recordings by different artists exist.

Having established that generally, individual performers in bands, are not categorised as individual performers we should remove all the 5th Dimension songs from the category.

It would be a good time to remind JGabbard again of the contents of WP:CATDEF which commences, "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define…" I challenge JGabbard to find articles that define On the Beach (In the Summertime) as a song by Marilyn McCoo? I also note that MM is not mentioned in the article, hardly defining and possibly inaccurate!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Rich: "On the Beach" is literally a 3-sentence stub. But Marilyn is definitely on that song.

Richard: I cannot determine even the slightest connection between those two artists and "Blurred Lines." (Did you mean Marvin Gaye?) But I agree that overcategorization can be problematic. Derivative works (parodies and samplings) should not be categorized as a song by the original artist: e.g., Yankovic's "Fat" should not be designated as a Michael Jackson song, nor should "Blurred Lines" be designated as a Marvin Gaye song.

I notice the example under "Paul McCartney songs" which includes this nota bene: "See also: the categories The Quarrymen songs, The Beatles songs, The Beatles with Tony Sheridan songs, and Wings (band) songs." In cases where helpful links can be made to relevant categories, that is more appropriate and prevents overcategorization. I will therefore remove "Marilyn McCoo songs" from all Fifth Dimension articles and am adding the helpful note, "See also Fifth Dimension songs" to her category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@JGabbard: no, because despite the controversy surrounding the song, it didn't sample Marvin Gaye. But it did sample "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" and "Whoomp! (There It Is)", so you do hear Michael Jackson and the Tag Team on the song. But I'll stop there and not say any more about this . Richard3120 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@JGabbard: You say, ""On the Beach" is literally a 3-sentence stub. But Marilyn is definitely on that song." So you don't understand WP:Verify either? Sorry, this is beyond a joke that you wish to defend the contents of this category. Some contents, as already shown, fail at least 2 major WP guidelines and you are still are willing to argue and defend. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Rich: Once you found something to chew on, you apparently neither finished reading my comment indicating concurrence, nor noticed the adjustments I had already made to the category. - JGabbard (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input and discussion. I appreciate the quick resolution and help by all. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

About "List of songs written by..." FL articles

Can anyone tell me whether the table format used in these articles can be modified to include production credits or if it is a set format that must not be changed? Myself and another editor are looking to convert 2 articles to this format and we would like to account for the aforementioned so I want to know if a column can be added on or if a key should be used instead. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, that would be more appropriate in "List of songs recorded by" articles not "List of songs written by" articles, although I'm still not sure I would include it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: this is one of the articles we're looking at converting. We don't want to erase the production information altogether but a separate list for songs he's produced would be kind of redundant, and I don't think a list of songs recorded by article is necessary/applicable for him? Is there any reason why his production credits can't/shouldn't be indicated? On the talk page, the other editor and I discussed possibly using a key but neither of us know if modifications are allowed because I couldn't find any discussion about the decision for the format of the table and the info to be included. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In the linked example, I think the additional "Producer" columns/info are not in keeping with a "List of songs written by ..." Songwriting and producing are two different roles and usually the two are not connected. Also, the tables jump back and forth from "Producer" to "Music" without any explanation (did he compose all the music for the tables with only "Producer"?; he didn't produce any of the songs for the tables with only "Music"?). Also, since it is a list of songs, the layout should reflect this: the first column should be "Song title", followed by "Lyrics", "Music", then "Artist"/"Recorded by", "Album", and then "Year". I don't see the benefit of separate tables by year – an alphabetical list would allow readers to jump to a particular song and by making the table sortable, one would be able to see all songs written in a particular year, by a particular artist, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: the talk page section above my discussion about converting it addresses all the questions you asked (the editor who created the article/listed the info the way it is explains why they did it like that). I'm aware of the changes that need to be made (re: the col discrepancies, I'm assuming where production credits were applicable the col was used, and where they weren't it was not, but as I've had minimal interactions w this article in general don't take my word for it) and why they should be made (I did link a FL that follows the correct format/layout). We're just trying to find a way to avoid the inevitable disruptive editing that will follow if all his production credits are removed when we convert the page (that's why we're hoping their inclusion could be preserved). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on artist. If one artit is mainly producer he produces songs for others ("list of songs produced by") but when he is also singer or just he would produce or have produced songs for himself ("list of songs recorded by"). In this case we could use name like "list of songs written and produceed by" but it still wouldnt mention his songs as performer. Eurohunter (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Cover versions/multiple renditions

I believe that it is time to revise the Cover versions/multiple renditions section of our guidelines to allow all recorded versions of a song by a notable artist (i.e. a blue link) to be included in an article. This is de facto what is happening in many many song articles anyway and is leading to numerous, and in my opinion, unnecessary quarrels. The number of covers a song gets and who covers it is a very important part of any tune’s legacy and needs to be in wikipedia. I don’t care if there are 2,000 versions of Yesterday (song). I don’t care if this information can be found on other sites, let’s face it 75% (to make up a conservative stat) of the information in wikipedia can be found on other sites and these sites come and go. Let’s just make a fairly simple change in this guideline (not a rule in any case) and be done with it. Probably this has been discussed before, so let’s do it again. Carptrash (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks. If there really are 2,000 cover versions of "Yesterday", the chances of all of them (or even some of them) being notable is relatively small. The guideline for including some particular cover should be the same as for creating an article for the original: if it's not notable, don't do it. And if some articles have too much crap in them, then they need fixing, not the honor of overriding our guidelines. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

What makes it notable is that 2000 folks thought it was a good idea to record the song. We (wikipedia) need to note this. That's 5.5 every day for a year. And who were they? Well we are not going to tell you. That is hardly the wikipedia way, or is it? Carptrash (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we do not need to note this. If Rolling Stone or some reliable source reports that they counted 2,000 recordings of "Yesterday", then we might include that as a measure of the song's popularity. (But then, I'd want us to compare that with the number of cover recordings of "Proud Mary" or "Johnny B Goode" or "White Christmas".) I would never ever want to see the entire list of acts who recorded it, nor would I dare to inflict the list on our readers, who want to know who wrote it, what year it came out, if it was included on a Beatles album (which one?), etc., but not see a ridiculously long list of large and medium performers. Why? Because, that is the Wikipedia way; we curate the information available so the reader can access and assimilate the important bits, and ignore the rest. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So you feel that you are comfortable deciding what every wikipedia user might be looking for? I'm not. That is up to the user. We provide as much information as we can, they are thus able to find what they are looking for. Carptrash (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If Wikipedia's goal is to be encyclopaedic, this would be a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh . . ... so less information is somehow more? Carptrash (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-notable band playing Bringin' On the Heartbreak in Barcelona on a wet Wednesday is not notable. The policy is good. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

So bring up some stupid example to prove your point. That never works. All songs must be by notable artists. Notable artists playing notable tunes is notable. Carptrash (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Carptrash:. That is not what I was saying. What is so notable if a blue-link famous artist plays or records a song? If I could be bothered I'd find the guideline about notability by connection, because that's all it is. I have no object to noting the number of Yesterday covers, with examples of the genres and types of artists than enthused the song with somebody else. we are talking about song articles not chart successes, let's aim to have more information about the subject matter, the song, not which latest big star has recorded the song to total disregard by all but their fans.

Check out my list of favourite Dylan covers on Spotify, not WP!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Powerful arguement. Check out List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs on wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists; [however] whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." If 2000 notable and not notable folks considered that "Yesterday" was worthy of another cover, it's cool, but in any way, we have to list every single performance of a song just because the performer is in blue, especially if secondary reliable sources don't even mention it beyond an album review. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As you say, this has been discussed to death (though not much by me.) I'm not exactly sure what supposed to be moving the needle this time? Usually people have a new or persuasive take on it... Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Carptrash raises some excellent and valid points. I have often seen entire sections of articles deleted indiscriminately, improperly citing policy, and have found it necessary to contend with those editors. I have recently found myself having to at least partially revert such edits in order to preserve valuable content. The inclusion of a list of hundreds of covers is unnecessary for any song. Very few require more than a dozen. The lists need not be exhaustive, but should provide a good overview of the most notable artists. The primary gauge of the notability of covers is music charts. However, charts do not always reflect the notability of covers (such as when a song has been covered by an artist more notable than the artist who popularized it). Older music frequently reestablishes its audience and renews its relevance by covers, or by its inclusion in media or popular culture. Those covers and inclusions which accomplish that should be not be removed, and policy should reflect the same. More trivial material should not be allowed to clutter an article (such as the example Rich cited), but it is way too easy to cavalierly remove very helpful material which sometimes multiple other editors collaborated on, without a line-by-line examination and consideration of each entry in the section. Such thoughtless actions do a disservice to both readers and contributors, and incrementally deprecate the project. - JGabbard (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking about listing "every single performance of a song." What some folks seem determined to do is to drag out the most extreme examples - "2,000 of this, every example of that" and then make policy to deal with those extreme cases. So Willie Nelson and Rod Stewart and others started recording 50 (or whatever) year old songs and it was a real trend and it needs to be noted on the articles of those songs. At best at least agree that content that editors have put in will not be removed without discussion on that page. But I think the policy needs to be changed. Otherwise it seems as if we are saying that if a recording does not sell a million copies we don't want to admit that it exists. Carptrash (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The current guideline sets a rather low bar for covers: "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right" (charts and sales are not mentioned). This is much easier than the notability requirements for song articles (multiple sources independent of the artist, not just in album reviews, etc.). If Willie or Rod did indeed start a trend by covering a particular song, then someone somewhere should have written about it, otherwise it's original research to say this. If covers, like "in popular culture" appearances, excessive track listings, and other details-for-details-sake, do not provide encyclopedic content, then there is no need to include them in an article. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Willie produced at least three albums between 1978 and 1988 of standards, (Stardust (Willie Nelson album), Somewhere Over the Rainbow (Willie Nelson album), {[What a Wonderful World (Willie Nelson album)]]), while Rod did five of them starting in 2002 (It Had to Be You: The Great American Songbook, As Time Goes By: The Great American Songbook, Volume II, Stardust: The Great American Songbook, Volume III, Thanks for the Memory: The Great American Songbook, Volume IV, Fly Me to the Moon... The Great American Songbook Volume V). This is not about a particular song it is about all the songs that they recorded. All of the songs should have these versions listed in the song article. I am proposing that, using the "rather low bar for covers" that any notable song (it must be a blue link) recorded by a notable artist, (again a blue link) can be listed on that song's page as a cover. Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Not only is it original research to say Nelson and Stewart started a trend, the fact that Stewart's first album of standards came 24 years after Nelson's first album of standards rather undercuts the assertion that there was some kind of trend underway. And I completely disagree with the statement that a notable song covered by a notable artist automatically makes that version notable. Richard3120 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hang on, credit where it's due ... Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Ringo Starr: Sentimental Journey (Ringo Starr album). (A few Linda Ronstadt albums too?) I happened to work on Sentimental Journey quite recently, and some of the sources covering the album's legacy might be useful. For example, this 2017 Pitchfork piece and/or articles linked within that.

I have some sympathy for what's been proposed here, particularly as I don't believe SONGCOVER is saying exclude mention of artist A, artist B and artist C having recorded the song, just discussion of and details on the released recording. On the other hand, you/we need reliable sources to recognise and attach significance to the bald fact that certain artists have recorded a song (even if the recordings themselves are not seen as that significant). There must be sources out there for this – just find some decent books, surely. JG66 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you JG, and I will gladly amend my posting to say that Willie and Rod jumped on the bandwagon of recording standards. The way I document who recorded what song is by using the album or CD by the artist that includes the song. Carptrash (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, then there are all the albums by 101 Strings, Sing Along with Mitch, the Chipmunks, and the godfather of covers, Pat Boone. Do we really want to open that door? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What better way to expose the Godfather of covers than to include him on all his songs? And as far as that goes, Pat Boone charted about three dozen times, so can, appear on these pages anyway. His No More Mr. Nice Guy songs should definitely be included. There is a reason that 101 Strings produced 150 albums. We can be all snobish about it but they were a significent factor in the music industry. We need not be too cool to include them. Carptrash (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Carptrash: Using the album itself is just self-sourcing. That's inadequate, and it's not what I was saying at all. Have you looked for books about these old songs, about the rise of rock and other artists turning to the Great American Songbook? – have you scoured Google Books (and Amazon if you have an account there)? Using the album/CD is the last thing we should be doing. JG66 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "The way I document who recorded what song is by using the album or CD by the artist that includes the song" = Primary sources that don't indicate why the covers are noteworthy; just sources that verify that X performer played Y. You complain that were are using "extreme cases", but this proposal leads to that, extreme cases. For example, why do we need lists like this one: "X recorded the song in 19XX". Where is the relevance? What makes it noteworthy? This is why we don't include every cover by every person. In that song, the Ian McCulloch version is the sole cover that might be relevant according to what is already written; the rest is unsourced original research. Just because you can create an article titled List of performers who covered Yesterday (Beatles song) because it is verifiable, doesn't mean you should do it; just because you can create a subsection of blue-link performers in an article doesn't mean you should do it. Ojorojo said it before, the threshold for covers is way too low. If a cover can't fulfill it, the problem is not the guideline, the problem is the cover. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What makes a song noteworthy to many folks is not how many copies it sold but how many artists recorded it and what a wide spread of styles there are. One song I looked at just now included versions in Dutch, German, Swedish, Japanese, French, & Malayan. That's notable, even if by your reasoning none of the versions in themselves is notable. But if those versions can't be included then that fact will not emerge. Listing many versions makes it possible to do various sorts of statistical analysises. Also to suggest that copying a song title from an album is original research is quite a claim. I have no problem requiring that folks source their edits. Carptrash (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Just one look at the covers sections of Bridge over Troubled Water illustrates why listing non-notable covers is not a good idea. If a cover is notable it has been written about in reliable sources, if not it has no place on Wikipedia.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well there you have it. I have no problem with that at all and it really does not take up all that much space. This is what happens to a great song, this is part of what makes it a great song. Carptrash (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I get that. It is evident in the awful list of non-notable covers you’ve re-added at the end of Da Doo Ron Ron which violates WP: SONGCOVER.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible alternative solution: Although not RS for article content, many song, album, and artist articles contain external links to Discogs using Template:Discogs release. Perhaps something similar could be used to link an approved set of covers sites, such as Secondhandsongs.[1] For songs, AllMusic often includes an "Also performed by" section, which also allows the reader to click on the entry to see which album(s) they appear on.[2] These types of external links don't immediately appear to fail WP:EL and may be allowed under WP:ELMAYBE #4 "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's sensible. And it should be workable within the bounds of WP:EL, with a squeak. Basically, if editors want to include mention of a notable artist recording a[n apparently non-notable] version of a song, it needs significant coverage beyond this. JG66 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to give an idea of what it might look like, following the Discogs template,

{{Secondhandsongs versions|LINKIDENTIFIER}} could produce something like:

• "Yesterday" at Secondhandsongs (list of versions) or
• "Yesterday" at AllMusic (also performed by)

I was surprised to see that "Secondhandsongs" already appears in 1,022 WP articles.[3]

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t Secondhandsongs user generated and therefore not a reliable source?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that didn't prevent Discogs being added as an external link (ELMAYBE #4 allows "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources" as "Links to be considered"). As far as I know, the AllMusic listings aren't user-generated; maybe that would be preferable. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I’d not have a problem with it being used as an external link for covers then readers can make their minds up if they wish to continue research away from Wikipedia. It lists, for example, 109 versions of Da Doo Ron Ron. I’d rather they were available on an external website than on the Wiki article.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

if you are looking for a RS source for cover versions, then may I recommend ASCAP, which is a professional reliable source and actually lists cover versions. Here is the link for Bridge Over Troubled Water for an example. It is a search for the song's index number so layout changes at ASCAP won't affect. At least this way we stay away from unreliable sources, and perhaps some will have the additional pleasure of checking the songwriters in WP.

This does not change my opposition to the listing of every artist because it's the favourite of the editor, not does it stop me from reminding myself these lists should be in text form as per WP guidelines. Nor should this be read as a vote! in favour of using external links to avoid WP guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem recognizing that this attempt to change wikipedia rules (guidelines?) will never get enough traction here to move forward. So I am adding this to my list of wikifailures and will go back to editing sculpture or something. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rich: Using an RS is definitely a better choice, but ASCAP (now apparently using the "Songview" database) has its own problems. For one, the links usually lead to to a disclaimer page that requires several steps before the song info is displayed. Also, its list of performers is not very complete. For "Da Doo Ron Ron", only 15 performers are listed[4], versus 121 for Secondhandsongs[5] and 39 for AllMusic.[6] In the past, I've encountered this problem with other songs on ASCAP, BMI, and ISWC. Linking UGC sites is not ideal, but, as Egghead seems to be saying, it is the lesser of two evils (You Are My Sunshine#Discography has 160 entries). Using AllMusic may be a better choice and perhaps others know of alternative databases that can be linked. The other option is to continue to remove versions with no indication they meet SONGCOVER. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

COVERSONG being challenged as UNDUE

Hell. An editor thinks listing many charting covers of "O Holy Night" is WP:UNDUE and has removed thrice (and been reverted thrice) and finally after the third opened a discussion on Talk:O Holy Night. Feel free to support their removal or defend their inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't reasonably argue that this (which you claim to be a third revert of the same thing) has anything to do with the objection to charts. Anyway, you've also failed to address how any of the versions meet either of the criteria of COVERSONG (much less that COVERSONG is actually a LOCALCONSENSUS from a Wikiproject...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The changes to the intro probably should not have been done. I did address it, but you have failed to understand, or possibly accept, the reason: charting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And you have failed to understand that "charting" is not an automatic pass or anything - even NSONG (which, being an SNG, should probably be taken with an additional level of doubt as to what really constitutes notability) says that charting may not make a particular song is notable in and of itself... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a valid point: "Notability" for NSONGS ("Note again that this [charting] indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable) and "noteworthy" for SONGCOVER ("discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right") are not dependent on charts. There is also a WP:PROPORTION-type issue: too often, chart and certification tables with one or two entries are added for each artist, even when the info is already in the prose. Visually, these take up too much of an article and should be removed.

Similarly, a separate section with an infobox and tables for track listings, charts, certifications, etc., just to note that a cover appeared (however briefly) somewhere in the world gives it far more coverage than it deserves, if it is not actually discussed (written about) by reliable sources. A simple statement, such as "Renditions by several artists have reached record charts in various countries" or a footnote with the details (referenced, of course) should be sufficient when there is really no meaningful discussion of these in the article.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Following on from that I note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes suggests that an infobox summarises the article, whereas we are known to use multiple infoboxes for multiple versions. This could be construed as creating part of the problem of undue weight. (FWIW, I am fence-sitting on this). --Richhoncho (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There used to be an Infobox standard, which had fields for original, covers, etc., if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, it was just another dumping ground for long lists of trivia and was merged with Infobox song with very little discussion. I think the current practice is better, as long as there is sufficient prose to support the additional boxes, i.e., similar to WP:LAYIM for images (no spillover to the next section). And there's {{Infobox musical composition}} for more historical or traditional pieces of music (less focus on "releases"), which is used in "O Holy Night". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Do you think the current focus on releases (and tables) at O Holy Night#Cover versions or Silent Night is too much visually? I tried to add some prose here, but Walter reverted it so that's that for the time being... I've also tried to limit the UNDUEness in the tables of content (compare [7] with [8]) so tell me if you think that's an improvement. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand it, but there are many in the project who state that if it charted it is notable. I side with it not being notable, but a table is not bringing undue attention to a cover version. That you have reduced the table of contents in both articles is a wonderful way to address your concern that the charts have too much attention, while retaining the contents in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:TABLES advises that tables "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list" and MOS:NO-TABLES includes "If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read." With these in mind:

For O Holy Night, what benefit is there in duplicating the chart info under "Cover versions" in a separate section "Charts" with eight individual chart tables that contain one or two entries? (there is some discrepancy between the two). It significantly increases the length of the article, so that covers/charts takes up more than half of the total.

For Silent Night, why are nine separate chart tables with one or two entries a better way to present the info than a simple bulleted list as in the preceding "In film" section? The artists aren't even linked (although one doesn't have a WP article).

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point. The tables are likely there because there are table-based templates, that have the details and reference embedded, but the details could be represented in prose, but should not be blanked entirely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

7", 7-inch, or 7-inch vinyl? (track listings)

I've seen this written in various ways across Wikipedia. Is there a preferred designation, or is it simply a matter of personal preference? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

According to MOS:UNITSYMBOLS#Specific units, quote marks (") should not be used for inch(es). When they were popular, they were widely known as "45s". However, terms like these may be too informal for an encyclopdeia. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not all seven-inch vinyl records played at 45 rpm - a number of EPs (two tracks per side, occasionally three) played at 33+1⁄3 rpm. For example, 3×3, Don't Bring Harry, Four from Toyah and Work Rest and Play. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

True, but EPs were rather uncommon and were referred to as "EPs". The point is an encyclopedia would be better served by not using informal designations that can change over time. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

So if you have "7-inch" written, it doesn't need to be edited to say "7-inch vinyl" instead right? That's basically what I would like to know. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's still ambiguous: "7-inch" or even "7-inch vinyl" could be either a single or an EP. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The tracking listing in question is for a song article. The single was released digitally, as well as on cassette and 7-inch. I wrote "7-inch" for the vinyl subheading when I orig created the TL section and an IP user later changed it to say 7-inch vinyl. So now I'm here. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think, but if it's a single, "7-inch and cassette singles" would remove any doubts ("vinyl" is unnecessary). BTW, a recent discussion led to this change in the project page.[9] Many times track listings are better presented in prose in a "Releases" or similar section if noteworthy, rather than in a separate section devoted to just "Track listings". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer 45, but "7-inch" is correct while 7" is not and appending "vinyl" here is unnecessary. In the case stated "7-inch and cassette singles" would be better represented as "7-inch, cassette single". I cannot recall ever having seen an EP released as a 7-inch. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Walter, almost every vinyl EP ever released in the UK has been as a 7-inch record - this is why Redrose64 mentions the fact that most EPs in that country used to play at 33 rpm rather than 45 rpm... it was the only way to fit two tracks onto one side of a 7-inch vinyl record. Richard3120 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I cannot recall ever having seen an EP released as a 7-inch. See the four examples that I provided at 16:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC), also 45 rpm EPs such as Twist and Shout, The Beatles' Hits, The Beatles (No. 1), All My Loving, Long Tall Sally etc. etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'm sure Walter is talking from the point of view of someone in the US, rather than someone from the UK... this is why we have to be careful about using terms such as "45" or "7-inch" to describe vinyl records, because we can see here that the form of an EP can change between countries, for example. Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In the 1950s, Elvis had several 7-inch 45 rpm EPs in the U.S.(with the big hole in the middle, none were 10- or 12-inch or 33 rpm). In any event, it may be helpful to come up with some standardized wording that would apply to all regions. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about United States terminology. In Europe, an EP had usually two songs on each side - the extra song was the meaning of the term "extended". They could be either 45 rpm or 33+1⁄3 rpm, I don't know how the record companies decided which speed to choose, but those of the Beatles (which were on the Parlophone label) were all 45 rpm. The playing time of a seven-inch 45 wasn't relevant to speed choice - whilst the average EP clocked in at four to six minutes total instead of the two to three minutes of a regular single, there were certainly some 45 rpm singles that were significantly longer: consider "Hey Jude", more than seven minutes; or "O Superman" at more then eight. I believe a Decca cutting head made it easier for a skilled engineer to squeeze in the grooves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the details on EPs. I'm glad to have learned this detail. Perhaps we could focus on the core question again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted cover arts at FFD (May 2021)

I invite you to below ongoing discussions for input:

• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 10#File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png
• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28#Other cover arts of Ain't Nobody
• Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 May 28#Torn (Ava Max song)

--George Ho (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on my song article draft

Is this the right page to get feedback? If so, I would like some feedback and criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FLASH_(Perfume_song) RayJ (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Information on music charts

I'm working on "A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request", a 1981 Steve Goodman folk song about a fan of the Chicago Cubs baseball team. I'd like to include some chart information if I can find it, but I am clueless on where to look. (My only other significant music contribution was an entry about a street singer.) Does anyone know where I would look for the relevant charts? I know Billboard has a website, but I'm sure which charts are appropriate. Any other feedback is welcome. This is a fun entry to write, but it is definitely not an area where I have much experience. Thanks! Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that if the Billboard website is to be believed, this song never charted anywhere, not even on specialist charts (most of which didn't exist at the time anyway). Richard3120 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find anything on Billboard reporting on this song at all. There's a short article about Goodman's death [10] that could be used to add information to his article, but it doesn't mention the song at all. it seems like the popularity of this song was confined to Chicago. Richard3120 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the response! It is good to know that I am not overlooking anything here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on playlist adds in song articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus for Option 2 based on strength of the arguments below. The arguments in favor of Option 1 are based on personal preference and editors' own understanding of the importance of playlisting a song in one particular media ecology. The arguments in favor on Option 2 are based in our core content policies. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

---

How should a radio station/network adding a song to their playlist (e.g., BBC Radio 1) be referenced in an article? Heartfox (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This question regards the playlist add dates of individual radio stations/networks, not country-wide "impacting days" or "going for adds" dates.

• Option 1: Allow in entire article (include/cite as a release date, status as a single, etc.).
• Option 2: Disallow in infoboxes and "release history" sections (do not include/cite as a release date or status as a single).
• Option 3: Disallow in entire article (do not even mention in prose).

Straw poll

• Not sure what option this would fall under, but I think it should be more of a situational thing. A playlist add is notable for an up and coming small artist like Meet Me at the Altar getting an early single on a major playlist, but it's pretty inconsequential if a veteran multi-decade artist like the Foo Fighters get their 30th hit single "Waiting on a War added to a playlist. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. When a radio station playlists a single, that usually means that the song has been made available to radio in the entire country or region by an artists record label or some other way. This can be seen for All Access which simply announces when a song will be available to be playlisted across the United States. BBC Radio 1 should especially be used as it is a national radio station in the UK. Also, this article about the single release of Harry Styles' "Golden" makes it seem as though being playlisted by BBC Radio 1 makes a song a single. LOVI33 00:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: I agree with LOVI. Especially if the radio station is on the level of BBC or AllAccess there’s no reason it shouldn’t be cited as those two are big enough in their respective countries to count as a national release. Not to mention the only reason those two are cited the most is because they’re the easiest to access in terms of release dates. The only instance I would find adding a radio station source as inappropriate would be if it is a small, singular independent radio station not representative of a large part of the country. Note that I do not support citing AllAccess’ “playing now” or “most added” tabs as those do not line up with their “future releases” tab and tend to reflect individual stations picking up songs early or playing album cuts. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: I agree with LOVI33 and CAMERAwMUSTACHE. BBC Radio 1 is a reputed national radio station so the obsession with getting it deprecated is a bit bizarre. 99.9% of the time an addition to BBC's playlists coincides with a song officially being serviced to radio stations in other territories. It is sufficient to indicate promotion that is independent of the album in my opinion, ergo a single release. Fans have argued against its reliability in the past to nullify the single status of commercially unsuccessful singles by their favorite artists; most recently I saw this happening at "Angels like You". It is just territory we shouldn't veer into. If consensus here goes strongly against Option 1, I support Option 2.--NØ 02:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 if the information is appropriate to the topic. If the information is trivial or redundant, of course it should not be relayed to the reader. A new musical artist getting a major airplay boost is worth noting. BBC Radio 1 in particular represents a national airplay presence, so it's usually important. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 If it is BBC Radio 1, should not be in any release history, the songs added when their playlist committee wants to. There is no adds by an official label like with AllAcces, their hosts choose the songs, of course they will choose brand new songs to play, but its not the same as the label. However, BBC radios still are worth to notice, just not as an official release date. Now there are several instances that the songs are officialy released to radio and are indicted by other outlets, the guardian/observer used to have a sort of week adds type of article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Only mention in the prose if noteworthy (new artist vs veteran's 30th release example) and definitely not as a source that it is a single. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 and only when noteworthy. QuietHere (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the comments above. Sea Ane (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Being played one time on BBC does not qualify it as a single. It could be played on a local program on the BBC, CBC or NPR or similar national station so the context of the spin must be understood. If the program on which it plays had national reach and it was actually in rotation, that is a completely different proposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Being playlisted means it will be played several times a day for most radio stations. --Michig (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 per rationales stated by others above. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• It should only be mentioned if it's a significant radio station, and a significant event in the career of an artist, e.g. Band X being playlisted for the first time by BBC Radio 1 = maybe worth mentioning, Band X being playlisted by Dagenham 104.6 FM = not worth mentioning, Justin Bieber's new single being playlisted by Radio 1 = not worth mentioning. There's a real danger that articles get filled with playlist-cruft. --Michig (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Just because it may coincide with a release in another country doesn't mean it should be listed. Per The Guardian article, BBC Radio decides themselves when to add songs. How can this be used to source a song as a single or a release date? Labels determine what receives a release, not a radio station/network, and unofficial releases should not be listed in "release history" sections. Just because a song is in rotation on a radio station doesn't make it official release. There's thousands of songs like that. The Official Charts article given above adds at the end it was "also added to the BBC Rado 1 playlist", meaning the single status is not solely, or likely at all, based on it being playlisted. Releases should be based on dates given by labels/secondary sources, not individual radio station playlists, no matter their size. Heartfox (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'm not the first to say this, but BBC themselves choose what goes on the playlist when. Labels are the ones who determine what gets pushed where, not the radio stations. Let’s create a scenario. The Weeknd's new album gets released with two singles, and his label plans to push "Song X" to radio stations as the third official single next Friday. But, BBC Radio decides this Friday that they like "Song Y", and they put that on their playlist. How is it fair to the Weeknd and his label, who, like any other artist, clearly put work into album promotion, if we list "Song Y" as the third official single when "Song X" was supposed to be the third official single. Wikipedia pages get thousands of views per day, and misinformation can and has spread quick. The point I'm trying to make is that labels handle the album promotion, not radio stations, and sometimes things like this can happen where they aren't in agreement. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed; occasionally the BBC have felt that the track promoted by the record label was objectionable in some way, and instead of imposing an outright ban (which could have had contrary consequences, as with "Relax") they decided to playlist a different track by the same artist, perhaps the B-side of the single concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 and only when notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 although playlisted songs are usually only playlisted when they're made available, it is generally unique to the UK where airplay doesn't count towards charting. Additionally, songs might be playlisted in their second, or third week of availability. There are also examples where songs are playlisted by the station and then released e.g. Drake "Doesn't Really Matter" ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Key and chord progression of Exhale (Shoop Shoop)

In another community I'm in, it was pointed out by one member that the chord progression stated in Exhale (Shoop Shoop) is wrong because it's a song in the key of C# major, not C major. Looking into this myself, it turns out that the chord progression information came from Musicnotes.com, which gives sheet music for the song published in C major (rather than C# as in the sample recording). As it turns out, the article itself also used to state it was in the key of C major until two years ago when it was corrected to show C# major (which it still shows now).

What can be done about this? Should the chord progression be corrected as if it was for C#? Or something else? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source to say it was originally in C^# major, there's not much you can do. I don't really like the use of Music Notes or any other website to state that a song was definitively in a certain key for this very reason: sheet music often transposes the key to make it easier to play, or for other reasons. Richard3120 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a bother... thanks for responding though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes keys are transposed to a more friendly one (depending on the instrument) for sheet music. Unless it matches the original, it is better not to say that it was "composed" or "written" in a particular key solely on what is indicated in one publisher's sheet music. Without other RS, it is still valid info, but should be qualified, such as "'Exhale (Shoop Shoop)' is an R&B ballad that has been notated in the key of C-sharp major" or something similar to indicate that it reflects the notation (sheet music) for the song and not necessarily one recording of it. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Songs_written_by_Gene_Autry Category page

Category_talk:Songs_written_by_Gene_Autry

Just my two-cents worth of advice. Autry either wrote, co-wrote or bought (couldn't resist!) well over 100 songs, and of the six we devote this category page to, we have left out two important compositions. "Be Honest With Me", according to my calculations, was the 2nd biggest "Hillbilly" hit of 1941, behind "You Are My Sunshine". "Tweed-O-Twill is likewise the #2 hit of 1942, behind "There's A Star Spangled Banner" by Elton Britt. Both songs were co-written with Fred Rose. Just because Billboard didn't start it's chart until 1944 is no reason to overlook the prior five years, when a lot of good information was published in columns and small charts. I might be off by a position or two with my data, but not by much, and those two records are as worthy as the movie songs we listed. Thank you for reading.Tillywilly17 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Calling a song a comm success worldwide when 99% of sales is from one country

Is it accurate to write that a song was a commercial success having sold over 1.3 million copies worldwide when 1) the cited sales only totals a little over 1.28 mil, 2) 1.2 million of that sales came from its home country alone, and 3) the only other sales data available is for 2 regions where the song sold 56k and 200 copies respectively? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I never understand why people need to add these sort of terms in articles... "success" is a very subjective word, and "commercial success" is even stranger - are there other ways to measure success apart from commercially? What's wrong with just saying "the song sold 1.28 million copies", and leaving it at that? Richard3120 (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: idk, you'd have to ask whoever wrote it in the first place I guess. Also, I take it that's a no on it being accurate, so would I be safe in correcting the total/rewording the lead to say that instead of "commercial success worldwide..." as it reads presently? This is the article I'm referring to btw. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I would definitely say so... I don't know what other editors think. Richard3120 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Richard. It's great that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, but some fan editors need to have their fingers rapped sometimes. And BTW: 200 copies in Canada (pop. 38 million)? Wow, um, that's successful. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: well the 200 copies were part of the "over 1.3 mil" so I guess that is successful? Lol, idk man. Thank you both for your responses, I feel more confident in changing the article now.
As I have both of you here (hopefully @Richard3120: doesn't mind my tagging him again), could you take a look at another question of mine above about using a youtube ref to source a "label" for a song? I posted it a while now but no one's responded. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I don't mind at all... I've replied to your questions above. Richard3120 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Swedish source: Hänt & using YT to source infobox "label"

Unsure whether I should've asked here or on the perennial sources page, but can any Swedish editors/editors who are familiar w Swedish music news sources tell me if this source is a reliable/acceptable one? Someone added it to an article I monitor, but it looks like a celeb news+gossip type site to me. If anyone can confirm or vouch for it, that would be really helpful. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have another question so I'm adding it here instead of making a new section. An editor added a label to this song's infobox and cited the YouTube music video upload as the supporting reference. To the best of my knowledge that's not the correct way to source a label, but I'd like clarification before doing anything about it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I know diddly about sourcing labels. I guess a currently active (i.e., not defunct or absorbed into some other recording behemoth) label's website might list current recordings by their current artists, but anything older? I wouldn't know. Sorry. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: that's ok, thanks for taking a look anyway. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hänt is a celebrity gossip magazine... it's an official publication, but it's not exactly what I would call a top-quality source. And I am very doubtful about the addition of Stone and Kakao as record labels for that song – Stone isn't mentioned anywhere, and Kakao appears to be used just as a distribution platform... you can see that it says the video has been licensed to Kakao, Sony Music and others for distribution on YouTube, but that doesn't mean it was released on those labels. Richard3120 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: thank you for the reply. Any idea where else I could find a good swedish source that might/would have covered Rockbjornen this year? Google didn't really turn up anything at the time I posted that question, at least not that I recall. Re: Rollin', I couldn't find any connection to Stone either, Apple Music cites only Brave Ent as the label, w Kakao M Corp as licensee. Amazon Music has no details, couldn't find the specific version on Tidal. On Melon, only Kakao Ent and Brave are listed as publisher (distributor) and agency (label) respectively. Think I should be okay removing Stone+Kakao M? I'd link this discussion in my edit summary as well. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Aftonbladet is one of Sweden's biggest newspapers and a reliable source [11]. Richard3120 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I found articles to use, tysm for that rec! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate info in two articles

I've seem to have stumbled upon a case, which i don't know what to do about - same song is esentially duplicated 2 times - once, having a seperate section as a "cover" of a song in Tuesday (ILoveMakonnen song) and having a seperate article Tuesday (Burak Yeter song) . I think it's not correct for it to be basically copy paste of each other in both places, so what would be the proper procedure to deal with a case like this? Kleool (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I would redirect the second to the first. Actually, I think it's pretty clear, so I'll do now. If I'm making some terrible mistake, let me know.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This is correct – Kleool, this comes under WP:SONGCOVER, where you will see that cover versions should be included as a section in the original article, not as a separate article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, when the cover is much better known than the original, the cover might get the primary topic of the article. As an extreme example, we have no article for "Sepheryn" (Clive Maldoon, Dave Curtiss) originally recorded by Curtiss Maldoon, but we have one for its best-known cover version. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere in the Night (Helen Reddy song)

I saw this Wiki entry and was a bit dumbfounded as this song was a much bigger hit for Barry Manilow in both the US and UK. Shouldn't the title of this song at the very least be "Helen Reddy / Barry Manilow song" instead of just Helen Reddy? I don't know anyone who is familiar with her version of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.3.182 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Arguably it shouldn't be either – the Batdorf & Rodney version was the first hit version. Songs that need a disambiguator are usually disambiguated by the first artist who had a hit with it – see for example Torn (Ednaswap song), although the entire world knows the Natalie Imbruglia version far better. Richard3120 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the correct disambiguation would be the songwriters' names, i.e. Somewhere in the Night (Kerr & Jennings song), rather than the first to record. The article is really about the song, rather than any particular performance of it, especially when, as here, there are three different charting recordings. TJRC (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with that, apart from that almost nobody is going to use that search term, because the writers of the song are almost unknown. Maybe redirects from Somewhere in the Night (Batdorf & Rodney song), Somewhere in the Night (Helen Reddy song) and Somewhere in the Night (Barry Manilow song) can be set up, as an option to get round that? Richard3120 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, those redirects are all already there. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we have an almost-precedent for another song co-written by Kerr and recorded by Manilow: Brandy (Scott English song). The only thing I would say is that it should be Brandy (English & Kerr song), since it was a work of joint authorship, not solely by English as the title suggests. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I take that back. Brandy is labelled "(Scott English song)" based on the fact that the first recording of it was, in fact, by Scott English; not based on his contribution as co-author. TJRC (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's because the disambiguator is the first artist to have a hit with the song, as I suggested above. I think there would need to be more input into changing the title of this article, because it goes against current naming procedures. Richard3120 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

MetroLyrics

The article says: "The site inexplicably went offline in late June, 2021". Is this permanent? How many External links section links are there to this site? Is there any co-ordinated action to replace them and, if so, with what? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This came up recently at WP:VPT#Discussion about Metrolyrics, actually. I've never been keen on using the site, always try to use the artist's official website where possible. I've also seen an editor or two adding links to another (even worse, imho) lyrics site. I'd like to get editors' opinion on that one, too – will search out the song articles if I can remember them and add here. JG66 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

... SongLyrics is the site, eg for this John Lennon song. Perhaps it's being added to song articles as a replacement for ML. JG66 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have found some lyrics sites banned. But they all seem much of a muchness, with more or less cumbersome advertising attached. A ranked list of preferred sites would be very useful. I wholly agree about artists' own sources, if they are available. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to Martin's first question about the number of liks to ML. And I also don't have any suggestions or ranked list of alternative sites. But please, please let's not condone or link to user-generated lyric sites like SongLyrics. It's not only a copyright question; there's the matter of pointing to Any Old Crap that somebody misheard or though would be cool to post as the official text. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest one "External links" section for accurate lyrics and another one for "External amusing mondegreen links". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

And more correctly, the only reason that MetroLyrics were even allowed was that they were licensed to display the copyrighted lyrics. Any other site would need to prove that they are valid copyright holders or licensed to list them, otherwise, the site would already violate copyright regulations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Only a fraction of the its lyrics were authorized and this changed over time. This is why there were so many problems, leading to its being identified as unreliable (see the linked discussions in its entry on WP:NOTRSMUSIC). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

So without a clear statement that a given site is authorised, is it not safer to assume that all other sites will be copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, there is the problem of accuracy. Musixmatch boasted it "is the largest lyrics platform allowed for worldwide licensing with deals with top Music Publishers as Warner Chappel, Universal Bmg, Emi Publishing, Sony ATV, Bmg Rights, Kobalt Music and much more", yet relies on its readers to supply and correct lyrics with some oversight by "curators" (like admins) who are sometimes very slow to verify changes. Discogs, secondhandsongs, etc., are not used because of user supplied info and lyrics sites are pretty much the same. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

So, without a clear statement that a given site is authorised and reliable, is it not safer to assume that all other sites will be copyvio and unreliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, as far as I'm concerned.

In the case of a user-generated site like SongLyrics, I think we should torch it on sight. Seems to have been used a fair bit across the encyclopedia. JG66 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A WP:MUSIC/SOURCES or WP:GOODCHARTS-type list for lyrics might seem like a good idea, but from what I've seen so far, lyrics sites have a lot of problems and often change their methodologies. Lyrics once deemed "official" (LF logo) by MetroLyrics later sometimes displayed something to the effect of "Sorry, we are no longer authorized to display these lyrics". It would simply be too much work to keep a list up to date – we'd be back here in six months or a year trying to get rid of the ones that are no longer authorized or reliable (assuming there were any to begin with). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

So it looks like we should be removing all links to lyrics that are not provided by an artist's own official website, or by a reliable source like a printed score or a book. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Bingo! Depending on what others say, something like that should be added to WP:SONGLYRICS. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

How about Song Facts? [12] It is a well-established site (1999), already used in some EL sections for other purposes. They acknowledge both the writer and the publisher, and claim "Lyrics licensed and provided by LyricFind." (LyricFind itself, however, does not appear to be a user-friendly site.) - JGabbard (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Currently, Songfacts uses LyricFind, which several lyrics sites use or have used, such as MetroLyrics, LyricsFreak, LyricWiki, etc. These also allowed user-generated material; Songfacts was added to the list of unreliable sources for this reason. If the idea is to find a replacement for MetroLyrics, it would be better to use the actual lyric provider, rather than an intermediary that may change at some point, as did MetroLyrics. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What about lyrics.com, e.g. this (which has small wiki mirror)? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be more of the same. Lyrics.com uses LyricFind for some songs, but also accepts user submissions.[13] Many of these sites have a large amount of advertising, which may run afoul of WP:ELNO #5: "generally avoid providing external links to ... web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You're saying user submissions are accepted automatically? There's no editorial oversight at all? I must admit I haven't yet tried. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's new song lyrics added four minutes ago by "anonymous" with no indication there was any review.[14] —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful for someone to create a bot to remove every reference to MetroLyrics in EL sections. No link at all, or even a substandard link, would be better than a dead link. - JGabbard (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Do songs that sample a hit need to meet the same criteria as cover versions?

"To Cut a Long Story Short" has a note about a song that sampled it, but the sampling song does not meet the criteria of notability for songs or cover versions. Is it OK to remove this information? If so, can something about sampling be written up or added to WP:SONGCOVER? Danaphile (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source about a song that sampled it, a one-line mention is enough. Unfortunately most sites that talk about sampling other songs (like whosampled.com) are user-generated and do not meet RS. What would be needed is a review that clearly states the referenced song sampled this song, or a scholarly work or book that does. Otherwise, yes, SONGCOVER should be met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The same idea applies: the song with the sample needs a reliable source that discusses it as somehow noteworthy, not that is just exists. Otherwise, a song that is popularly sampled could have dozens of unimportant examples added to the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Soft Kitty

Is this edit claiming similarity based on the editor's observation of a youtube video WP:OR? It seems so pretty clear to me, but I've already reverted twice and don't want to get into an edit-war, particularly if I'm the only one who thinks so. TJRC (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is textbook WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my take. Unfortunately I can no longer revert w/o violating WP:3RR, so I need to let it stand at least for a while. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure you can, but you would be a three, but I already reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Money On You#Requested move 19 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Money On You#Requested move 19 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Look Back (manga)#Requested move 20 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Look Back (manga)#Requested move 20 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

K-pop industry terms for songs

Over the years I've come across quite a number of K-pop articles that use terms that mean something different to most English-speaking readers, and I've tried to correct uses of these, but they keep cropping up and occasionally K-pop editors have even changed them back. Namely "title track", which to most English-speaking readers means a song that shares the name of the parent album/EP/project it is from, but in the K-pop industry means the main single that promotes its parent album (or EP) regardless of what the album/EP's name is. More rarely I come across prose of K-pop articles using the term "B-side" to mean any track from an album that was not a single, when most English-speaking readers understand a B-side to mean either the flip side of a vinyl single's A-side or another track on a single release that is not the main song.

My reasoning in edit summaries upon changing these has been that this is the English Wikipedia and we should aim to cater to what we could expect most readers here to understand. I've tried to find a content guideline that echoes this sentiment but I'm not sure if there is one. More broadly, what should be done about this—should these instances continue to be changed or should there be some kind of an explanation that the term means something different for K-pop articles? I can't imagine having a different use that applies to some articles only would be preferable here. Ss112 14:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we should change the article to include the K-pop term and make sure that readers understand that it has a different meaning in that context. We might also want to include that definition at lead single, or wherever. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment. It's as I often say in similar disputes: On Wikipedia, we write for general audiences, who can understand fully through the prose and wiki-links present. We're not writing for the "hardcore fans"; we don't use their lesser known terminology. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I think that some K-pop editors would argue that because the whole of the K-pop industry uses "title track" and "B-side" to mean different things that means said terms aren't "lesser-known terminology". The articles title track and A-side and B-side already cover the different uses of the term in Korea, but I think that's as far as it should go and we should try to write more generally like you said, and not in an "in-universe style", so to speak (of course, that's not to compare a real-world industry to fancrufty writing). Ss112 07:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of K-pop song articles have "music program awards" sections that provide no context as to what the info in the tables mean (e.g., Permission to Dance#Accolades). This is also an issue IMO. Heartfox (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I agree, that's a very common issue with K-pop song articles as well. K-pop editors also have a habit of adding the lead single's chart data to its parent album or EP article when the song does not have its own article, and then they also add all the "music program awards" to the album article and so on. Quite honestly a lot of it is trivial. Ss112 07:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Jimmie Davis

I recently updated/improved page for You Are My Sunshine, learned some about Davis, who wrote over 700 songs. Next I am going to work on his page, and write about the 1930s-1940s songs, which are poorly documented, possibly because there was no official C&W chart. Most of his songs were published by Peermusic with BMI (the latter documents 786 songs). Also, he bought some of his songs from composers that needed money. I just write about stuff I have good references/documentation. I have to ignore possible KKK and segregationist stories, unless he wrote them in a song. Interesting fellow. Tillywilly17 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits to You Are My Sunshine[15] added seven (7) infoboxes for versions that have minimal text to support them. There are also 170+ almost entirely unsourced versions previously listed, making this one of the more egregious examples of cover overkill. It would be helpful to review the explanations at Template:Infobox song#Parameters and WP:SONGCOVER for more clarification. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you don't care for my approach. The 170+ were already there. The infoboxes were to illustrate the very early history 1939-41, including authorship and copyright controversy, sections 1-4. The 170 covers have to be researched, one at a time.

Contents

• 1Earliest performances and recordings
• 2Copyright and Publication
• 3The Bottom Line
• 4Chart Success
• 5Discography 170+

Tillywilly17 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. I seriously doubt that more than a few meet the requirements for covers; better to make a clean start with a search of reliable sources and build from there (note: I did say "previously listed"). Also, infoboxes are not a substitute for prose. If the street address is really important for a studio, it and other infobox details should be included and referenced in the main body. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nooooooo I already knocked at least half, and all but 2 were good. Aron Young=Faron Young and a few other goodies. Must take break. After I recover good ones, we can do a new search, there are so many out there. I added a few new ones. More important is to find a couple of cover items worth writing about, but so far, nothing catches my attention. fyi-I don't generally like covers Tillywilly17 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Next time I work on them, need to rewrite each cover with more info, not just provide reference. Is there a good template? Tillywilly17 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy you're improving this, and I appreciate your efforts. But there's no way that many infoboxes and single images are warranted. Especially considering none of the images are particularly different from one another. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Do me a favor, work with me step-by-step on this. I have no doubt you are correct, and not surprised, but I pushed the boundaries here to learn. Be my mentor for this one time. I want to know the "why" re limits on text boxes and art work.

Both of these tools can make a page much better, by organizing and illustrating the subject, or critical parts of the subject. It says in the editing manual to go for the artwork, and push it with your editing. I loaded up this page because it is about a classic American song, but so far, it has underachieved. It had no picture or infoboxes, so I set the table for you.

The most important things (imho) are background/history of the song within reason. Leave the conspiracy theories for the blog website. I sourced when possible from Tony Russell, well respected researcher for this era and genre. I dug up solid dates of recording, publishing, etc., where possible.

This is my first draft, and I was kind not to tear the existing version up, and start from scratch. It is hard to write a good article while weaving in and out of the remnants of prior authors(s). Replacing information is not what I mean, weaving a balanced story is.

The most important things...number 2, tell the story of the first 2 bands that recorded 1939 versions, then enter the dragon (J. Davis), who antes up $17.50, to match his friend Charlie, and help Paul Rice pay for his wife's abortion (or whatever Tony wrote, only trust him). Jan 1940 Davis-Mitchell copyright song, then Ralph Peer, the guy who published over 700 songs for Jimmie during his life, pub on Jan 31 1940. Then they record it Feb 4 or 5 (double-check).

I have Hillbilly chart records 1939-1942 published by Billboard that Whitburn never used, another of his controversial decisions. I spent months studying these charts, and the columns BB published, and without doing original research, basically followed the methods Whitburn and the Whitburn Project people used to tabulate the raw data, and get a framework to use. Back in these days, there were maybe five big hits in a year, so this is very useful.

What I found is that all the records with infoboxes and pics scored on the Hillbilly charts, except for Bing's pop version, and Jimmie Davis! Gene Autry had to have the top single of 1941, and Bob Atcher's might have been the same for 1940, which I will never say, because too close to call, no guessing allowed.

Which should we keep?

We need Autry, Jimmie Davis

Gene's chart record Pos.

The Billboard July 26, 1941 pg 76 4

The Billboard August 30, 1941 pg 104 1

The Billboard September 27, 1941 pg 69 1

The Billboard October 23, 1941 pg 62 1

The Billboard November 29, 1941 pg 91 1

The Billboard December 27, 1941 pg 133 1

The Billboard January 31, 1942 1

Get rid of Airport Boys and Bing

Bob Atcher was a legit #1 hit - The Billboard July 27, 1940 p84

last two

1939

You are my sunshine - The Pine Ridge Boys 8/22/1939 Atlanta, Georgia 1 Master Bluebird B-8263 10-in.

The Billboard October 26 , 1940

HILLBILLY RECORDINGS:

04 You Are My Sunshine, Pine Ridge Boys

---------------------------------------

Rice Brothers' Gang

Paul Rice wrote it in 1937

recorded Decca September 13, 1939

re artwork we don't need to use record labels, I have photos, sheet music folders, etc.

textboxes - we can remove fields Tillywilly17 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding images - Wikipedia's image policy is pretty complicated, but the short version is basically that images are only necessary when you have a concept that can't be illustrated fully through text alone. All seven images are just all the same boring image of gold text on a solid colored disc. One image is necessary to give a sense of recognizability for a subject, but not all these similar variants. It'd be different if, for example, one had a giant mountain on it, and one had a guitar on it - totally different things. But there's no reason to have to illustrate all seven similar variants.
• Regarding infoboxes...I'll let someone else answer that. A lot of people have a lot of strong thoughts on them, and I don't particularly care much either way. All I know is 7 is about 4 more than I've ever seen in an article before. I dont know how many are acceptable, but 7 doesn't really feel likely to be close. Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  Haha I am counting on you to protect me from those infobox squeezers

  I make good infoboxes, often with 2 categories per line

  When you go to the doctor, first they get height, weight, BP, pulse. A song/recording infobox is a summary of vital statistics

  That said, I agree, and I will go ahead and reconfigure, trying not to duplicate what is in the text in the infobox Tillywilly17 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if every image is just a label of the disc, you're likely to fall foul of WP:NFCCP, specifically point 3a – other editors will say that it's effectively the same image, so only one is needed. I would say if you can only have one image, I would make it the Jimmie Davis version – it's the version by the original copyright owner, the version that is the "state anthem" of Louisiana, and the version that is in the Library of Congress, so it appears to be the version with most significance. My view of the infoboxes is that if you can't say more than one or two sentences about that particular version of the song, then it's probably not worth adding the infobox... it doesn't make sense to me to have an infobox that is longer than the prose. Richard3120 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks better already. Next I will sub out the disc labels. stand by Tillywilly17 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on "You Are My Sunshine" and "Jimmie Davis" pages. Change YAMS configuration as discussed, also added around 15 songs to Davis' discography, with chart positions, and many with references. They will all have ref soon. I need to write now, to add content to both pages. I will check back tomorrow. Thanks for help. Tillywilly17 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please review You Are My Sunshine when you have a free moment. It is improved, and I would like remove the notices while I continue to improve it, but in this case, I refuse to do it myself. I hope I guessed right on what was wrong, but just in case, please do me this favor. I got more aggressive about the parts of the article I did not create, deleting and rewriting plenty of both. Thanks DaveTillywilly17 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The article tags "require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: WP:SONGCOVER" and "tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia" should not be removed until these issues have been resolved. Sentences like "Perhaps it represents a song that rarely comes along, with simple chords and lyrics, appealing to blues and jazz musicians alike, as well as children and their grandparents[17]. There's a little something for everybody in this song, and young recording artists keep it alive by adding their touch to it.[18]" are poor paraphrases and not in an encyclopedic style. Also, sources for the "Discography" rendition entries include YouTube and Amazon (not reliable sources) and do not actually discuss the renditions, which is necessary for covers. Please review the links that have been provided for clarification. —Ojorojo (talk)

The images used in the infoboxes are problematic as well, as they illustrate the singers, not the subject of the article, which is the song. I still think all these infoboxes are unnecessary. That said, you've done a good job in improving this article - note Ojorojo's comments above. Richard3120 (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Guys I got a problem. Found this in my talk page.

Your edit to You Are My Sunshine has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Your edit to You Are My Sunshine has been removed" I have made many edits to that page today

Most of my text is there. I do not like guessing games

How much

Look I need to know what I did, or am accused of.

thanks Dave Tillywilly17 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.bear-family.com/davis-jimmie-you-are-my-sunshine-5-cd-deluxe-box-set.html

You Are My Sunshine (5-CD Deluxe Box Set)

Label Bear Family Records

catalog number: BCD16216

Deluxe Edition

Released, April 29, 1998

This set includes extensive books with notes by Tony Russell, and rare pictures.

is this about Tony Russell's booklet?

????????????????????????

never been accused and threatened Tillywilly17 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

additional response I sent: I have made 98 edits on that page since yesterday. Without a word, you make decision and send me that message. I have no specific idea what I am being accused of doing, no answer This was not necessary, I was at my computer, I am a straight-forward person, if I did something wrong, I will fix it as best I can. But it seems like you already decided whatever. .I have lost all my enthusiasm have a nice day xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

---

Haven't gotten a response. If anybody knows this person, and believes I might not be evil or whatever (why would I put a citation link to the article I copied?). I am from the USA, we don't convict people without a trial. At the least, she was rude and very hasty in her actions, I can't believe Wikipedia administrators are allowed to throw an editor-in-training under the bus like this. If I did something wrong, I am very sorry. If I didn't, we'll never know it, because I don't know exactly what I did, and have had no opportunity to respond. Thanks DaveTillywilly17 (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to talk with an admin, there are places for that (like WP:AN); this isn't one of them. Or, you can directly address an admin of your choice on their respective talk page, not here. Best of all, you can contact Diannaa (who is an admin) on her talk page, and find out what the problem is, although it seems quite clearly explained: you apparently added shiploads of copyrighted material to the You Are My Sunshine article. The "without a word" phrasing is inaccurate; she left the message on your talk page (the one you're complaining about). We take WP:COPYVIO seriously here, which is why she revert-deleted so many of your edits, to immediately remove the offending content. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't know what she deleted and neither do I. The article is intact. I don't mind criticism and advice, I react in a very positive way. Being called dishonest and threatened, without any evidence, and no response, is over the top. I quit. Thanks for getting back to me. Tillywilly17 (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Her edit summary literally states that she deleted the material copied from the Bluegrass Messengers website. You cannot just add any information you find on the internet – it has to come from a reliable source, see WP:RS. This usually means respected and established newspapers and magazines, and online websites with editorial control and professional journalists... a blog like this one won't be accepted as a reliable source. Also, you weren't called dishonest in any way at all – this is a standard message to let editors know that their additions appear to have been copied and pasted word for word from another source, which is illegal. If this is not the case, then as John says above, you can argue your case at WP:ANI. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 21#Editor who clearly needs help may provide a little more background. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Capitalizing certification titles

Should we capitalize certification titles (Gold, Platinum, Diamond) mid-sentence, e.g. "The song was certified 2x Platinum in the United States", or lowercase it, e.g. "The song was certified 2x platinum in the United States"? I have seen inconsistency in how this is applied across song articles, even FAs.--NØ 18:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I know,and I am completely against it... "gold" and "platinum" used in these contexts are adjectives, and there is absolutely no reason for them to be capitalized. The trouble is, many reliable sources, including the certifying bodies themselves, often use capitals... I guess they feel it makes it sound important. Richard3120 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Gold", etc., looks odd to me, but it has its followers. Apparently, RIAA has trademarked its awards, so in one view (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 1#RIAA Certifications), they should be capitalized. That was 2007; maybe it's time to bring it up again. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding of that discussion, it should be capitalized for RIAA certifications and none other, then?--NØ 21:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:TMCAPS and MOS:TM provides more detail, but it depends on the way they are trademarked. It seems that a broader use, as in "the album was certified gold in five countries", should not require capitalization because a specific award is not mentioned, IMO. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should capitalize the certs. They are not adjectives describing color or metallic content, they are awards. BPI capitalises the certs (UK spelling), RIAA capitalizes the certs, and plenty of other sources follow suit. Examples include American Idolatry by McFarland, the Tower Records website, Bette Midler: Still Divine published by Rowman & Littlefield, and Music of the Postwar Era by ABC-CLIO. The Encyclopedia of African American Popular Culture published by ABC-CLIO straddles the fence by capitalizing specific certs and lower-casing general statements. Sure, I can see that Billboard magazine mostly uses lower case, but not always. There's room to maneuver here. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:You Need a Mess of Help to Stand Alone (song)#Requested move 1 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:You Need a Mess of Help to Stand Alone (song)#Requested move 1 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 02:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Rolling Stone Top 100 number-one songs of 2021

Asking here instead of the RC WP because it's only semi-active at best. Does anyone know how the sales for the songs on the above list are being sourced? The majority of entries are sourced w chart refs, which do not contain any sales info. And of the few refs that are RS articles, even less mention sales data in them. I've been googling some of the numbers cited because I want to help properly source the page but I can't find anything to support them. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If you hover over the graphs it shows the units. Heartfox (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I'm on mobile. I can't "hover" over anything :( -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Campaign to reduce backlog of album infoboxes w/o cover art

Somewhat related to this project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Backlog elimination drive: Album covers is an effort to reduce the number of infoboxes lacking album covers. Participation welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC started on track listing sections

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Two boring questions about promo singles

1. In the infobox for songs, do we include promo singles in the singles chronology? For example, see the infobox for the single Nude (song), which includes the promo singles Bodysnatchers / House of Cards.

2. In nav templates for artists, do we include promo singles in the singles section, or somewhere else? For example, see Template:Radiohead, which places promo singles such as Bodysnatchers / House of Cards in the "Other songs" section.

No opinion on either, but wanted to see if there was a consensus on this. Popcornfud (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Boring is what we do best! There has been a lot of discussion about promo singles[16] and I think the feeling is that promo singles should not be mixed in with commercially released singles, otherwise they might be seen as same. How do the artists' bios/official discographies handle these? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is about right. If a song is correctly identified as a promo song, it's not in the singles chronology, and usually has its own section in discographies. Just a general observation - I haven't created or maintained any discography articles at an FA level or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Good Day (Tally Hall song)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at "Good Day (Tally Hall song)" and assessing it per WP:NSONG? It's a newly created article and I'm not seeing any sources that are currently cited which clearly establishes the song's Wikipedia notability. This could just be a case of WP:NEXIST, but I did a cursory Google search and didn't really find anything which would be considered a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg relisted at FFD

The image File:Love Train - O'Jays.jpg has been relisted at FFD a few times. Your input there is most welcome. --George Ho (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Roud Folk Song Index and Child Ballads nr in the WP:LEAD of articles about songs

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Images incorrectly identified as front covers of singles

I've listed certain images that were incorrectly identified as cover arts of singles at WP:FFD and PRODded them. The ones I'm discussing are usually cover arts of parent albums of same names, e.g. "Lonely Teardrops". I'll provide other examples if necessary. Seems I fear that there may be some others more being as such. How much of an issue is this to you? --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC regarding WP:SONGCOVER

Should cover songs have separate sections in articles if they only list chart positions? According to one view: "separated sections and chart tables for each cover are almost always use in song articles to prove these covers are actually notable and do meet WP:SONGCOVER"?[17] This has been used to justify repeating chart info already included in prose, by adding a separate section using subsections with a series of chart tables for each cover.

Other applicable guidelines include MOS:OVERSECTION ("Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose") and MOS:NO-TABLES ("If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read.")

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• We should handle it how we always handle sections. Got a lot to say? Make a section. Just a sentence or two? Add it to some other section. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• No (to RfC question) Nothing in SONGCOVER suggests a layout, format, or style for covers. I wonder what specific wording Synthwave.94 feels justifies separate sections for each cover (irrespective of the amount of actual content) to prove that they are notable. Multiple covers without much supporting material are often contained in a "Cover versions" section, where they are presented in prose or a bulleted list. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, and I'll go further than this RfC's question: if there's not much prose (as per Sergecross73), don't add a section, and don't add an infobox and tables to "flesh it out. I've seen several GF attempts to make a section out of a song that made it onto two charts in, like, Finland and Paraguay, filling in a lot of (mostly unsourced) Schnickschnack to make look like an Article Jr., when it's really only a short paragraph of actual content. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Schnickschnack? Is that like a schnickers flavoured with schnacks? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, but I like the way you think! — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is the kind of question that is hard to give a simple yes and no answer. When you have a large number of chart positions to list, it is unreadable when written as prose, and a table would be better. If someone wants to to use this RfC as a justification to remove all tables of covers, then the answer must be Yes, because it is unreasonable to remove a table simply because it is a cover when there are large number of chart entries. Of course, a cover with a large number of chart entries would likely to have more to write about, so would justify having a separate section, but that isn't in the question, so perhaps a better question is needed to give a No answer, and I would say No in situations where the covers are unlikely to have their own sections. It's not a good idea to use a specific dispute to make generalised statement that covers all situations. Hzh (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There are several related questions that this RfC is not attempting to cover. For example, SONGCOVER does not mention charts, but requires that the cover be discussed by a reliable source and not just appearing or listed in one, such as what charts provide. Without any accompanying commentary by a RS, there is nothing to write about it except "reached No. 63 in Portugal", which doesn't seem any better than "covered by XYZ on their Big Album". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes there are plenty more to write, but we chose not to write them because there are simply too many versions (this is true for some songs that have been covered by numerous artists over many decades and appeared high in the charts many times), or they are harder to write because the sources are harder to find due to the sources being in older books and news articles not digitised online (many articles for older songs are poorly written for this reason), so it's not just a simple case of nothing to write. Arguably these covers can have their own sections, but we just put them in a single section. Having chart tables can be a simple way to show their notability. If someone is to start using this RfC as a justification for indiscriminate deletion of tables then I would think it objectionable. Hzh (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the question raised by this RfC is straightforward: "Should cover songs have separate sections in articles if they only list chart positions?" So far, the responses indicate that separate sections should only be created when there is sufficient material to support them. This is consistent with MOS:OVERSECTION. Perhaps it may be more clear with the following examples (click "show" on the "Extended content" box – the first has separate sections, the second uses one section with a list format). There is no real or intended "indiscriminate deletion of tables"; MOS:NO-TABLES advises against using tables for a few items. I don't see how "chart tables can be a simple way to show their notability" (Schnickschnack?) —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

SEPARATE SECTIONS WITH TABLES Percy Sledge version Chart (1969–1979) Peak position Netherlands (Single Top 100) 10 Tom Tomson version Chart (1972–1973) Peak position Belgium (Ultratop 50 Flanders) 21 Belgium (Ultratop 50 Wallonia) 10 The Cats version Chart (1975–1976) Peak position Netherlands (Single Top 100) 21 Sinéad O'Connor version Chart (1991–1992) Peak position Netherlands (Single Top 100) 71 Josh Groban version Chart (2007–2008) Peak position Norway (VG-lista) 5 US Adult Contemporary (Billboard) 19 Glasvegas version Chart (2008) Peak position Sweden (Sverigetopplistan) 42 Mariah Carey version Chart (2009) Peak position US Digital Song Sales (Billboard) 67 Elvis Presley version Chart (2013–2014) Peak position France (SNEP) 120 Nat King Cole version Chart (2013–2014) Peak position France (SNEP) 125 ONE SECTION LIST FORMAT Several recordings of "Silent Night" have reached the record charts in various countries. These include: 1969–1979: Percy Sledge No. 10 on the Dutch Charts 1972–1973: Tom Tomson No. 21 on the Belgium Ultratop Flanders chart and No. 10 on its Wallonia chart 1975–1976: The Cats No. 10 on the Dutch Charts 1991–1992: Sinéad O'Connor No. 71 on the Dutch Charts 2007–2008: Josh Groban No. 5 on the Norwegian Charts and No. 19 on the U.S. Billboard Adult Contemporary Chart 2008: Glasvegas No. 42 on the Swedish Charts 2009: Mariah Carey No. 67 on the U.S. Billboard Digital Song Sales Chart 2013–2014: Elvis Presley No. 120 on the French Charts 2013–2014: Nat King Cole No. 125 on the French Charts References

To be honest, I think the list format is far neater and more readable. I really don't see the point in creating long lists of tables when one line of text gives the same information in a clearer manner. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are just ignoring what I said given that my point is that it is not straightforward, and using a deleted section as example is pointless apart from messing up the discussion. Discuss the cases individually, or provide a better question for which to answer. Hzh (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you are being ignored at all. Sergecross73 has already said how you would treat each case individually - if there's nothing more than a chart position, it can be added in one line of text; if more prose can be written, then an infobox and chart table can be added, which is exactly what we do already. You said that adding a chart table shows "their notability", but the text does that as well - whether it's a table or a line of text, if all that's provided is a chart position with one source to verify it, then the notability is exactly the same, and it then comes down to a subjective opinion of which is the better method of presenting that information. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)