Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Songs and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

WikiProject Songs was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 November 2012.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2013-02-11. The result of the discussion was wrong venue.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

"Credits and personnel" or "Personnel"?

Which one is the most appropriate? Besides, should we include songwriting credits? I've seen that some articles do include them in this section, while others don't. Additionally, do we type the artists' real or stage names? Jvaspad (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Credits and personnel" seems redundant to me; I would pick one or the other, but never use both.

Songwriting credits make more sense in the track listing section to me, especially when organized by {{track listing}}, so I wouldn't bother repeating them in both sections.

I would think which name to use would be decided by what's used in the liner notes, and if for some reason that isn't enough default to whichever is the common name. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Round Here#Requested move 16 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Round Here#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writers vs performers

Songs are a pain to credit because of the widespread erroneous assumption that a performer must be the sole creator of the song. This doesn't happen much in categories other than music; almost nobody thinks an article should begin with "Hamlet is a play by Kenneth Branagh" or "Football (soccer) is a sport invented by Lionel Messi" or "Harry Potter is a book by Daniel Radcliffe" – but in articles about songs this exact type of obvious mistake happens on a regular basis, maybe even most of the time.

I'm sure my own preference for fixing this would be quite unpopular – to credit every song first to its writers without exception (for example no performer in the short description), and to list the well-known performers after that – but it does have the advantages of not being insane, and of being how things are normally done in all other relevant categories.

It's a bit different for an article about a particular recording, but not SO different; being careful to type "Elvis Presley recording", and to not type "Elvis Presley song" unless he really wrote it, isn't very difficult.

But assuming my ideas aren't the best way, I think it's still clear that the current way obscures reality quite a bit, and needs review. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also sure your preference will be quite unpopular. For one, most popular music has been consistently credited primarily to recording artists rather than songwriters, and that crediting comes from reliable sources which we base our articles on. Since all those reliable sources follow that convention, why shouldn't we? And it's not like any given song article excludes the writers; they appear in the infobox and the lead quite consistently. And your method would come with the implication that recording a song isn't itself an act of creation, which just makes no sense. I'm sure there are numerous exceptions where it does make more sense to lead with the songwriters, but it would never work as a blanket rule. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with "to not type Elvis Presley song". If it's Elvis Presley song written by X and Y it's still his song - it works this way. Eurohunter (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sales certifications on first release

The current practice of using BPI sales and streaming data for certification means that the information is almost meaningless. In the days of paper sources, a song might be highlighted as having achieved certification as a result of sales associated with a successful chart run. While it is of some interest that songs may achieve certification long afterwards, it's not the same as doing so at the time, and any understanding of cultural impact and the artist's career will be misled if, for example, 30 years later a notorious flop is used in an advert and shows on here as a gold record even though its commercial failure led to the band breaking up. I think it would be better if we showed both historic certifications and current ones. Martinlc (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinlc: How would you like to distinguish historic certifications and current ones? Certifications given 30 years ago or 3 days ago are both historic. I know what you mean, but how would you like to distinguish it? 1, 5, 10, 25 or 30 years and why 25 not just 5 or why not 30 years. Btw. there will be still new certifications in next 50 years for releases released 20, 30 years go or now. Eurohunter (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing sounds like it would be easily solved by including all that information in prose and including the date of certification in the cert table. Not sure I see what the problem is beyond that, nor do I think there's any reason to distinguish between the two. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär

The article Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär was recently created by User:Tamtam90, and I thank them for that. However, the (unsourced) translation is an utter misrepresentation of the German text. The mistranslation of Wenn to 'When' is what caught my eye first. On closer reading, their English text has often no equivalent in the German. I gave more details at Talk:Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär#Disputed translation.

While correcting the translation, I also made more that half a dozen other improvements – some quite substantial – as described in my edit summaries. Tamtam90 reverted them all, twice. I would welcome the input of other editors in this matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you are certainly right. Purposely translating text incorrectly so it would fit the music better is absurd. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many poets would publish here their [translated] song-books, under a free license, in the sight of such reviewing? --Tamtam90 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attracting poets is not the goal of Wikipedia. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor to undo their original inputs by "just so walkers". --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult WP:OR. What are "just so walkers"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic translation doesn't need to be completely identical to the original. I don't know why the awesome text (which you put instead of my original translation) must impress the readers as a song. Nevertheless, I already published (under a free license) 50 my translations into another tongue, and some (though still here, within the articles) in en-wiki. The source of the current translation is here. --Tamtam90 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "source" fails WP:RS. This discussion should take place at the article's talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Our Song (Taylor Swift song)#Requested move 23 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Our Song (Taylor Swift song)#Requested move 23 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]