Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 1

message: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for an infobox. Tuf-Kat 14:11, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I added a special userbox for the Wikiproject songs that is based upon the userbox for Wikiproject albums. This'll start a members thing. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Doesn't seem like this particular WikiProject actually does anything very grouplike. Being a member doesn't actually seem to mean anything... GassyGuy 03:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: infobox

message: OK - it seems like no-one has touched this project for a while. If nobody minds, I'll take over for a while and try to revive and improve it.--Moochocoogle 21:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Project

message: As these are created, please work towards proper formatting -- song titles go in "quotes", album titles are italicized.  Also, if the intent is to have a comprehensive set of song articles for the albums so treated, it might make sense to go ahead and link songs (even ones that don't have articles yet) at the outset, or these links will have to be placed in later.  Jgm 21:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: Must confess to a profound dislike of the phrase "Off of (album name)". Could we use "From the album (album name)" instead? - MykReeve 00:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok... That does sound better - Fizscy46 01:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dislike

message: Some thoughts on this. I'm new to Wikipedia, but would like to contribute. I can't see the point of showing the previous and next songs on the album, it doesn't seem very useful. Also, how about showing chart positions?  --Auximines 15:19, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How isn't it? It saves time from having to go back to the album pages. Chart positions are good for sure. Billboard especially. - Fizscy46 02:52, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I aggree that chart positions should be included for singles. --Moochocoogle 03:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous and next

message: Rather than do a track listing at the end of the album box, why not have a singles' chronology if the article is on a single? Don't get me wrong, if the song was not a single then the current set up makes sense. However, singles are more likely to get articles, and thus the set up I'm suggesting would work better in most cases. -- LGagnon 02:26, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree with this.  On most albums, I think only one or two songs, if any, deserve an article, and thus we shouldn't need to link to them in the infobox. Tuf-Kat 04:34, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Yes, single chronology is probably better (though, I suppose, both could be included). --Moochocoogle 03:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listing at the end

message: What do you do with a B-side that was actually included on an album and made the charts (example: The Jackson 5's "Who's Lovin' You", the b-side to "I Want You Back" and a #1 R&B hit of its own)? Do you use the yellow, green, or orange table? --FuriousFreddy 07:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charting b-sides? 

message: Can someone write an article on this phrase/song/whatever? I am sick an tired of not knowing where this comes from, everytime an ad or movie preview uses that line. I have listed it on Wikipedia:Requested articles/music#Songs. Thanks, --Spundun 05:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[I Got The Power]] 

message: OK, I finished making the infobox for this project, which can be seen here, and working examples are at Smells Like Teen Spirit and In My Place. It's not perfect yet and it has few differences with the proposed project. I guess you can edit it around and use it everywhere. I think it would be easier if we had this template. Oh yeah, someone please add the colour scheme because I was unaware of those three categories at the time of the making. and about the "from the album "<insert album>", would it be better to put it with the "Single by <artist>" or right below without being highlighted? If it is without highlighted below, it seems a bit hard to notice as it is not really an info about the song itself, but rather the artist, etc. I removed song from most thing because I do not think it's necessary, and also when it is a single CD, (or whatever), there would be more than one song, thus making it not a "Song length". I also put the "Chart position" in a separate place because there can be a lot of chart infos if we tried enough and it would look nicer to have it instead of getting mixed up with already full middle part. Anyways. WB 11:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I like it.  The song box was always just an awkward adaptation of the albumbox anyway.  My only quibble is with the label field at Smells Like Teen Spirit -- wouldn't just putting DGC be plenty of information for virtually all readers?  The details should certainly be in the article, but that takes up more space than its utility warrants. Tuf-Kat 21:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
::It's quite true that DGC would give sufficient info for readers, yet people seem to like putting the catalog numbers in Wikipedia. About the templete, there would be problems with the "not featured on an original album". For example, in Hey Jude, my template would be harder to use. Maybe I should put an empty parameter to put things. I am not an expert on templates, but is there an option where you can have few options? WB 23:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm pretty useless with templates too.  You could ask at the village pump (either assistance or technical, I guess). Tuf-Kat 02:03, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::To deal with "not featured on an original album", you could replace the line
 from the album 
:::with
 
:::and that should provide enough flexibility. Meantime, anyone know how to apply this box to "Amerika"? And also, it might also be a good idea to put a template on every song's talk page, to provide an easy way of listing every page in the project, like WikiProject Albums does with . grendel|khan 15:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
This needs to be fixed, redirected from films to songs. --Fantailfan 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only done one template, but the WikiProject Songs template section snipped below



</noinclude>
still points to Films.--Fantailfan 11:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template / Infobox 

message: When I was here earlier (see above discussion), I learned that songs recorded by more than one artist can have compund infoboxes added to them. However, there is an issue with the editors working on the Mariah Carey singles where seperate articles are being made for Carey's covers of hit or popular songs (examples: "I'll Be There" -> "I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song)", "O Holy Night" -> "O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)"). Both of these articles were placed on Votes for deletion, with "O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)" not reaching a consensus; "I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song)" is still being voted upon at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song). There should be a set precedent as far as how many articles for one song are needed in the Wikipedia; special rules cannot be made up for just one artist. --FuriousFreddy 02:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs recorded by more than one artist. 

message: First, I'm really impressed with the work this WikiProject has done to standardise song pages.  I think that the song infobox could be improved if a section for professional reviews were included.  I know that allmusic.com writes reivews for very significant songs, and there are always reviews on the NME or dotmusic sites as well.  Moreover, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums includes a section for professional reviews.  What do you think?
Acegikmo1 04:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it could really use it. There are some good single reviews out there, especially on the All Music Guide. Could someone adjust the template so it can include reviews? -- Reaper  X 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Reviews 

message: I've created a template (at Template:Song infobox) based upon the format specified on the project page, and I've incorporated that template at Imagine (song) as an example. If you edit that page, you'll see that it is now a lot easier to use the standardized format you've defined. Cheers. --Arcadian 13:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an easier template. I would like to be able to have it read "on the album" instead of "from the album" as early 60s and 70s songs particularly appear later on albums. Any ideas in the meantime? Alf 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have read the discussion above, there's already a template called Single infobox for the songs. -- WB 02:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
FYI: Template:Song infobox has been nominated for deletion at Templates for deletion by WB. BlankVerse ∅ 14:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template 

message: I feel that the issue of placing songs in bold needs to be discussed as there seems to be some  inconsistences. When placing a song in bold, whether it be at the start of an article, in a table or list, etc. should the double quotation marks be bolded as well. That is should it be "Song" or "Song". I feel that we should agree on a format that can be used throughout.
My vote is for "Song" as this looks much neater, it more clearly highlights that fact that it is a song title and as such this is what I have been using. Ianblair23 22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... That is a good point, "Song" does look better and it highlights more clearly that songs go in quotes. --Moochocoogle 23:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation deals with this and recommends quotation marks not to be bolded in this case. --Bensin 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs in bold 

message: I feel that the "Song" template is too biased towards modern popular recorded music.  There are many classic old songs that are no longer in copyright that would be perfect for posting on here but don't really fit in with the proposed template.  Take a look at You're a Grand Old Flag for a great example.  It has an image of the song sheet, information about the sont, and even the lyrics.  And it's not copyrighted!
Are there any thoughts about this and how to set up pages for old sheet music? --Markkawika 09:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old sheet music 

message: I noticed a number of 12" MAXI Singles were color-coded in 'lightblue', instead of the standard 'yellow'. I think it was intially done in error, however I believe it makes sense to further categorize singles by color, as they are already noted as such in many of the infoboxes (IE - 45/single vs 12" 'MAXI Single', 'CD Single'. 
Either way a decision should be made (add category or not), and either cleanup or promotion of additional song/single categories will be required. Barrettmagic 13:10 August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:The single boxes color codes have already been set. If you see a light blue infobox for a single, by all means make it yellow. --FuriousFreddy 07:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Songs are often relesed as singles in more than one format. The colour is yellow for all single releases. --Moochocoogle 14:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional colorbars for single songs

message: Hi folks,
I just wanted to let you know about a new list of deletion debates related to articles on songs and albums.  You can find it here:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Songs and albums.  
If you find this list useful, please help maintain it by adding new items or archiving old ones.  Thanks!
Oh, and please feel free to join the project.  We need all the help we can get.
Cheers,
-- Visviva 15:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion list 

message: The High and Mighty Color songs list. Im sorry if im just whining though.Gaijin Otaku 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some updates are needed on... 

message: The Template as it stands is out of keeping with the Manual of Style in a few respects:
#It links the artist name twice.
#It capitalises "singles chronology".
#The example given uses "CD" instead of " CD" (and UK instead of United Kingdom on the second occasion, which doesn't need to be linked in any case).
Most problems in articles actually come from people ignoring the Project guidelines, or copying out-of-date versions of the template from other articles, or editing according to music-journalism norms under the (often very strong) impression that they're set out in the Project. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS issues 

message: I'm currently trying to bring the Christina Aguilera related articles up to project standards, but I'd like to be clear about whether or not an "airplay only" single, which wasn't released commercially can count as an orange header.
*Um, that's not something I'd previously thought about. I wouldn't give it a yellow header but modify the album track box to include a chart position section. I would assume this will become more of a problem with music downloads becoming more popular. Album tracks may end up charting on download charts. If this happens a lot we may have to make a different infobox. --Moochocoogle 00:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Airplay only" singles 

message: One person's decision does not suddenly make something policy. The person who edited that does not make it policy, nor does my deicision make it policy. To be fair, I've made that section neutral so that neither way is endorsed until we can reach a consensus, so EM, for the sake of being fair, don't revert it, and keep it neutral for now. Is that fair? OmegaWikipedia 00:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this be discussed before being changed?  If you want to bring in more opinions, you could list this page at RfC. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EM, don't revert (neautrality)

message: Allmusic.com has a complete list of all charting singles on Billboard charts including Hot 100 and other singles charts ie R&b country in its articles for the artist and the album.  Top 40 charts has an extensive database of charts from 2000 onwards see  but beware of the popups. As an Australian, ARIA has an end-of-year charts from 1989 onwards and a list of certifications at the end of each year for singles and albums (platinum and gold). Australian musical charts aka the estimable Jamie from Monash has a subscription list of the Australian singles and album charts see . There is a Yahoo group on charts where the UK charts are mailed out weekly. I understand that Guinness has a reliable book on UK hit singles. 
Oz Music Charts has a list of #1 hits in the US, UK and Australia dating back to the 1950's. Songfacts.com lists US and UK chart positions on their database of songs see this article on Hotel California as an example. 
Uncle G asked me to outline how I found chart positions so this is my response. I would be grateful for other people to outline their sources. Capitalistroadster 14:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a resources section for chart listing websites from your information and moved your talk here. Also added my source for UK charts. --Moochocoogle 18:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: The section states that "chart positions included should probably be for the artist's home chart, charts in English speaking countries and charts in which the single reached the Top 40.", but it also asks users to list positions in order of highest to lowest, regardless of the national chart.
Isn't the first condition sufficient enough, where we list an artist's home charts followed by any relevant English-speaking charts, and finally any additional Top 40 positions?  Because when you view artist pages, their singles discography have always been listed in a similar order, with home charts followed by other relevant international positions.  This leads to a kind of discrepancy in the formatting between the artist and singles pages.... --Madchester 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charting position order

message: * I have written an extensive comment on notability criteria for songs on the WP:music talk page. Please feel free to add any thoughts that you might have. Capitalistroadster 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability Criteria for Songs

message: can we lighten that purple up some, for readibility's sake (and maybe the b-sides' green as well)? --FuriousFreddy 00:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to find colours that weren't used for other things. I understand they are a little dull but I'm going to suggest a new infobox style anyway. --Moochocoogle 21:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color classification for soundtrack songs 

message: Is there an infobox for folk tunes and older music? The one currently used for singles assumes a modern song that has been recorded by a single artist or group. But what about songs like "O Holy Night", "Dixie", or "Ode to Joy"? Has something for these been created? BrianSmithson 15:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a problem. I'm starting to think that the current infobox is not focused on the right things. It is very much biased towards singles and the commercial aspects of songs. I'm going to rethink the infobox and suggest a new one. I know this is going to be rather drastic due to the amount of articles that implement the current one but I really think it needs doing sooner rather than later. --Moochocoogle 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect you might have something in mind for what you think should be included in a more genericized infobox. But another option might be to create a new one for songs not particularly associated with a particular artist, such as a Christmas carol or a drinking song. Information like "First published" and "Written by" becomes more important, as does perhaps "First performed by". Can't wait to see what you come up with. BrianSmithson 11:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 
"Country House"	"Country House"                                         	"Country House"
Lyrics by:     	Damon Albarn                                            	Damon Albarn
Music by:      	Damon Albarn / Graham Coxon / Alex James / Dave Rowntree	Damon Albarn / Graham Coxon / Alex James / Dave Rowntree
Published:     	1995                                                    	1995
OK, here's an idea. It's very simple. Just a small, basic infobox for all songs with "Lyrics by", "Music by" and "Published". Singles can still use a single infobox as well. --Moochocoogle 14:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Humm.  Then there are folksongs for which the answers would be Anonymous, Anonymous and -- does the Percy folio count?  Goldfritha 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk tunes, older songs 

message: I'd like to register opposition to the idea that the song title in the chronology section of the infobox be bolded.  There's no obvious reason to do this; all I can think of is aeshetics, but it looks slightly uglier to me.
On the subject of Wikilinks in the infobox, could it be made clear that multiple occurrences of years, names, etc., shouldn't be linked?  I've had a number of run-ins with editors who insist on linking the same year up to four times in the same infobox, their justification being that it's in the template.  The template, of course, can't distinguish between a new year and a duplicated one; the editor using it can. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding of song title & wikilinking years, etc. 

message: If :Category:Fooband albums and :Category:Fooband singles exist (as per current guidelines), should they be parented by :Category: Fooband or not? Please add to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Any_consensus_on_categories?. --pfctdayelise 02:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on category conventions 

message: Hi. I'm writing because I have worked on some single articles for Tori Amos ("Me and a Gun," "Crucify," "Silent All These Years" and "Professional Widow" so far), and I've run across a problem. The singles released in the UK and the US do not match up -- i.e., "Silent All These Years" was released earlier in the US and the UK; in the UK, other singles came first. 
At this time, Amos, an American-born artist who I believe was living in America, was being handled by the Atlantic UK divison East/West Records. So whose chronology do I honor? That of the United States or the UK? (Not to mention that there were more released in Europe, but I haven't found enough info on those.) 
I have not added infoboxes to some of these articles because I am not sure what to do. Jacqui★ 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice would be just to pick one chronology for the main article and stick to it. You can then make a note of the other release dates. For the infoboxes, you can edit the box so that there are two chronology sections or include the info in one section like "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)". --Moochocoogle 15:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single chronology for Tori Amos 

message: Some songs are singles that did not appear on any original album by the artiste, such as Hey Jude or She Loves You. Don't we need a different infobox for these songs? The She Loves You article is quite cluttered now. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "From Album" is an optional field. You can just disinclude it and you should be fine. --FuriousFreddy 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles not from albums 

message: I've placed Dixie (song) on peer review. Feedback most appreciated. --BrianSmithson 14:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie (song) peer review 

message: Why are the infoboxes for singles of such a gaudy yellow color? In most cases, this color doesn't match the colors of the CD cover. imho a less shiny color would be more appropriate. --MRB 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The color isn't there for decoration. It's for organizational and informative purposes. --FuriousFreddy 21:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but why can't the infobox be both informative and pretty? MRB 10:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yellow looks fine to me. --FuriousFreddy 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox color 

message: Think all the interesting songs have been covered?  Think that they all have infoboxes?  You might be surprised what songs are missing.  I have created a list of notable songs (critically acclaimed or high chart position) that may not be covered in wikipedia as part of the Missing Encyclopedic Article wikiproject.  The goal was to help identify songs of importance that "should be covered" by creating articles or redirects for redlinked songs and removing valid blue links (song is covered, has an infobox).  For a comparison, you may want to see the companion list, list of notable albums.  Any area where you can help would be awesome.  Thanks!!! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of notable songs 

message: Should promotional single infoboxes have their own colour? Underneath-it-All 01:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think promotional singles should have their own articles. Extraordinary Machine 01:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I don't thinks singles should have articles at all. Songs should have articles and there should not be more than one article per song. --Moochocoogle 14:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promo singles 

message: A user created the page State_of_Maine_Song, and I'm not sure what to make of it. I thought I'd check over here to see if anyone here could take care of this and verify it. Cheers! Semiconscious · talk 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the lyrics as a potential copyright violation.  Jkelly 23:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State of Maine Song

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. You featured article candidates are probably A or B-class. Can you recommend any suitable song articles? We are also interested in your model (FA) articles. Please post your suggestions here.--Shanel 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: Hi - can someone please explain why my redirect from I Predict A Riot to I Predict a Riot is not working?  It is just pretending I hadn't made the edit, but it's there in the history!.  I'm confused!  DJR (Talk) 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try clearing the bowser cache and refreshing - press ctrl while you refresh -- <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">getcrunk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3366FF">juice</FONT>contribs 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Predict a Riot  

message: I just created this cat and well... you have two competing things... will this category be useful? Maybe not... but, if we have "Arabic language songs" should we exclude English just because there are a lot more songs on Wikipedia in English?  In any case... please come to the talk page since we need to decide this for all "English language foo".  Thhanks. gren グレン 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category talk:English language songs]] 

message: Hi! I came across :Category:Songs by the Supremes, which is named differently the all the other songs by artist. Apparently, there was a CfR vote in (here) in September 2005, with half the votes saying "rename for constistency" and the other half saying "rename all the others; 'Songs by X' is better than 'X songs'". As far as I can see, no such umbrella nomination has been made. Thoughts on this? /skagedal... 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Supremes songs" or "Songs by The Supremes" 

message: It doesn't look like the current version of the infobox actually provides support for background color at all. In fact, the articles being used as examples for album tracks and B-sides are clearly using an outdated version of the infobox.
Maybe what needs to be done is to delete all references to background color and direct people to Template:Song infobox instead, and make a new infobox for B-sides? –Unint 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background color? 

message: Okay, I've seen two formats - which appear to result in the same thing - for WikiProject Songs Infoboxes. One starts like this:
{{Infobox Single 
| Name = <SINGLE NAME>
| [ Cover = <PIC>]
| Artist = <ARTIST>
| from Album = <ALBUM>
| etc.
The other starts like this:
{| id="toc" style="width:20em; margin:0 0 0.5em 1em; float:right;"
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|"<SINGLE NAME>"
|-
|align="center" colspan="3"|[[Image:<PIC>|225px|Single cover]]
|-
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|Single by <ARTIST>
|-
!align="center" colspan="3"|From the album [[<ALBUM>]]
|-
Which is correct? – Fantailfan 12:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second is presumably a substed version of the first. It's not usually necessary to subst infoboxes, and it's obviously much easier to edit the first - so use the first I'd say. Flowerparty■ 22:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which WikiProject Songs Infobox Template a/k/a WikiSingleFormat 

message: I suppose I should archive what I deleted here. Everything was under the Infobox header. None of this is applicable to the current iteration of the infobox. (The colour scheme might be useful to some future project; plus some of those example articles need re-formatting.)
| [ Reviews = ] *
* If no reviews are available, use NoReviews = yes to hide the coloumn.
All Music Guide link

Infoboxes for album tracks and B-sides can be found in the example articles below.
===Colors===
The background colours will vary by the type of song and the way it has been released. "Singles" are any songs released commercially as a music video or the A-side of a single (or one half of a double A-side). "Album tracks" are those songs that have been released on an artist's studio album but not as a single. "B-sides" are songs that have been included as the B-side to a single but have NOT appeared on a studio album. Soundtrack songs are songs that appear in films or musicals but have not been released commercially on their own or as part of an artist's studio album.
Singles         	#FFFF00 (yellow)  	
Album tracks    	#FFA500 (orange)  	
B-sides         	#2E8B57 (seagreen)	
Soundtrack songs	#800080 (purple)  	
===Infobox examples===
Here are some examples of articles using the infoboxes:
*Singles: "Country House", "The Great Beyond", "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
*Album tracks: "Debra", "Helter Skelter"
*B-sides: "I Keep Mine Hidden"
–Unint 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The outdated information 

message: Here are some examples of articles using the infoboxes:
*Singles: "Country House", "The Great Beyond", "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
*Album tracks: "Debra", "Helter Skelter"
*B-sides: "I Keep Mine Hidden"
–Unint 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox examples

message: I recently proposed a deletion recommendation for a category called "Weezer singles" on the grounds that it almost completely overlapped :category:Weezer songs, and the recommendation passed. I find the overlap of "songs" and "singles" categories to be problematic, as nearly all noteworthy popular songs are singles (take a look at :category:U2 singles and :category:U2 songs, for example). So I'm inclined to recommmend on CfD that ALL categories named "(Artist) singles" be merged into their corresponding "(Artist) songs" category, if there is one. Please note that I'm not opposing the chronological heirarchy of "(Year) singles" categories or the lovely singles infobox, just the double categorization scheme (so a song might be in "U2 songs" and "1998 singles," but not "U2 singles"). I'd like to hear from people whether they oppose or support such a recommendation.--Mike Selinker 05:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the proposed merger.  It's ridiculous for the flavor-of-the-month pop artist to have a song article as both a single and a song.  And it's equally ridiculous for songs by, say, the Beatles to have all of their songs in a songs category and some of them in a separate singles category (especially since it seems that every single Beatles song ever has its own article).  I'd support the elimination of the Singles by artist category altogether, and all subsequent subcats as well.  Anthony Hit me up... 12:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I certainly don't want there to be articles about singles and then a different article about each single's a-side, but has that ever happened?  Surely that is not what Mike Selinker was talking about above.  But I think that this proposal eliminates useful information.  One should be able to go to :Category:The Beatles singles and get a list of all the singles that the Beatles released, as opposed to :Category:The Beatles songs, which would be a list of some, but not all, Beatles songs from albums, singles, etc.  An article that is in "U2 songs" and "1998 singles" but not in "U2 singles" needs to have its cats tidied; I don't think that is an argument for deleting a cat scheme.  Jkelly 16:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mike's main point is that for the preponderance of artists out there, the only songs that have their own articles are singles, due to notability issues.  So for the most part, the two categories overlap completely or almost completely.  It would have to be determined what to do about the exceptions, as there are plenty. Aguerriero (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't doubt there are exceptions. We can find them and see what makes sense.--Mike Selinker 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is suggesting that there are or will be separate articles for a song and its single.  I'm also not certain I agree with Mike's claim that "nearly all noteworthy popular songs are singles". Nevertheless, I support the idea of unifying the two cat hierarchies into one called songs.  Having them separate divides the focus of editors and will require perpetual maintenance (which I'm assuming will not be done).  I personally don't think the ideal of having a browsable singles categories is worth it. ×Meegs 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another complication of separate schemes: as things are now, many songs categories contain their artist's singles category, as :category:U2 songs does.  Some will certainly argue that following general convention for subcategorization, U2 songs that were singles should not be included in both cats, leaving :category:U2 songs for non-singles only. ×Meegs 09:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.--Mike Selinker 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a proposal which some folks here might not like 

message: Could anybody here provide some feedback on the recent discussion at WikiProject Albums? Perhaps that discussion should be moved here. Jogers (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A single with the same name as a song, italicize or quotes? 

message: Information about the song (song story etc.) or the musical analysis? — Prodigenous Zee - 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which comes first? 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Arts WikiProject article table for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, anyone want to tackle this? I'm sure we could come up with at least a few articles. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see that you're trying out the bot!  Contact us if you need any help.  Thanks, Walkerma 03:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: This is related to a discussion at Talk:Invisible (Jaded Era song) that I'm in the middle of. If an article covers a song that has been recorded by more than one act, then if/when it has to be disambiguated should it be done using the name of the act who recorded the most notable version of the song, or the name of the act who recorded the song first? I think the latter makes more logical sense (as well as avoiding POV issues), but I was wondering what other people thought about this. Extraordinary Machine 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I think there should be only one article. If that isn't possible, the name of the act that recorded it first should be used. Notability is way too relative, as you can see by taking a look at the proposed song notability guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Songs). --Kristbg 12:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is rarely, if ever, a good reason for two versions of the same song to have separate articles. I am totally against that. As to how the article about the song should be named, notability is simply too subjective to be a good criterium. Take the case of a song like "Everlasting Love." How do you pick which version is the most notable? If you were in the UK, you would probably argue for the one done by Love Affair. If you were in the US, you might be split between Robert Knight's or Carl Carlton's. If you were younger and didn't really know much about the popular music of a few decades ago, you might be more inclinded to go with Gloria Estefan's or Jamie Cullum's. All of these choices could be given decent arguments, and, in the end, they're all correct, because they're all possible. You could argue and be sure of your answer, but someone else can feel equally strongly about his, and where are you left? That whole thing is flogging a dead horse, I imagine, but, my point is, it's better to have a more objective criterium, like original performer. GassyGuy 07:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles for articles of songs recorded by more than one act 

message: * 
* Talk:Sway (song)
Please give these discussions your attention. Uncle G 00:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs recorded by more than one artist. (reprise) 

message: 
This needs to be fixed, redirected from films to songs. --Fantailfan 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Songs template 

message: (1) How does one determine level of importance since WP:NOR and WP:NPOV apply? Should there also be "This article has been rated as X-importance on the importance scale importance scale"?
(2) Should WikiProject Songs have its own article importance grading scheme and assessment pages?
(3) How awesome would it be if there were links to the songs, so people could hear them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.66.210.229 (talk • contribs).
:Copyright problems. -- ReyBrujo 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few questions

message: The notice on the main page is outdated now as I just tagged at least 50 articles in the last hour. 23skidoo 16:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be many thousands of song articles. Perhaps a bot should be used to tag the talk pages? --kingboyk 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In progress. I'm tagging all songs stubs as class=Stub. Of course some of the articles will be past stub now, but a few false positives is a small price to pay for automating this task. --kingboyk 09:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Only 10 songs tagged"

message: The Beatles is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Beatles]]

message: I think it is about time this makes wikipedia. It has made many night talks and has over 18,500 direct references on the web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.58.231 (talk • contribs) .
Anyone? 210.84.48.68 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those questions are relevant to whether it should have an article about it. -Freekee 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[yallah ya nasrallah]] 

message: I saw this template added to the talk page of this article about the Croatian anthem. I am just wondering if "national anthems" are going to be tagged with this for now on, so I do not revert by chance. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is a yes, since Special:Contributions/SirPoor is adding the templates to the NA talk pages. Well, can someone give me some insight of what happens here so I could help yall with the anthem articles? I got 3 to FA, so I just want to know. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know some of the members of the project had doubts about certain articles about anthems (Kimigayo was one of them), so come see me if you have any questions. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lijepa naša domovino]] 

message: Anyone willing and able to help me or find ratings information about Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other "such as sales figures...and which record charts the song has appeared on"? I would appreciate it much and it would be a quick and easy way to turn an article into a Featured article, per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other. Hyacinth 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings: Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other

message: The lack of (sensible) responses on the above FA is getting quite depressing. Would any editors interested in songs please have a look at the article and leave a comment at the FAC? It would be appreciated, thank you. --kingboyk 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck the Millennium]] 

message: Whitney Joins The JAMs, a minor KLF song, is on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated. --kingboyk 14:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Whitney Joins The JAMs/archive1]] 

message: I just found this notice tag on a song talk page: This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Songs because it uses a stub template. Then it asks whether I agree or not. What does it mean? -Freekee 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub-class tag 

message: Sorry for the double post, I decided at the last minute to post this one for review too. --kingboyk 14:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)/archive1]] 

message: I dont know what wikiproject this will belong to. So, I'll let you decide. --Cat out 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oh My Goddess! Soundtracks]]

message: The (my) article Dear Lord and Father of Mankind has been tagged as part of WP:Songs. In my opinion, while Hymns and Christian Songs could be part of this project, until the aims of the project are clear, it is a topic left out for the time being. They are not things like singles that need infoboxes so I am not sure what good the project can do. As a result, I have removed the tag, but am not saying that it should not be there in the future.
Good luck,
Mdcollins1984 21:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hymns 

message: Several articles on my watchlist, including Marian antiphon, Celtic chant, and Ambrosian chant have just been tagged by this WikiProject.  These articles do not discuss an individual song, but genres or repertories of songs.  In some cases, like Celtic chant and Gallican chant, there are virtually no extent melodies.  Do these articles fall under the scope of the project? Peirigill 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories of songs

message: She Loves You is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[She Loves You]]

message: Would someone interested in Korn please review the Daddy (song) article and help provide sources for some of the material I removed this evening?  The lyrics I believe are a copyright violation so those need not be restored.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daddy song

message: Is this project actually proposing an article on every song ever released, regardless of whether or not it's even been released as a single?  We have User:Andman8 creating an article on every cut on the album Mach 6 by an artist who is arguably not that well known, surely we don't need an article on every single song?  I can bow to the idea of an article on songs that actually make important charts, but Andman8 is posting a Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs link on the Talk page of every single one of the album cut articles as if this is the goal of the project.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles should meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. In other words, no. -Freekee 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mach 6]]

message: I could use some help at Talk:Old Dan Tucker. I'm working on an expansion of that article, but I need a little help with interpreting some of the musicologese of my sources. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 07:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now expanded the article and requested peer review. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Old Dan Tucker/archive1. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 08:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Old Dan Tucker]]" 

message: I'm starting to notice some of the song articles linking to YouTube and other video hosting services for the song's music video.  Some of the links are being removed because of copyright violation, but others are being kept.  I can understand both sides of the issue.  For those keeping, there are comparisons to linking to sites for the song's copyrighted lyrics.  For those removing, there are arguments of linking to copyrighted information.  I think some policy for links to music videos should be established on the project's main page to determine if these links are okay to not.  Otherwise, the project may be divided between people who want to link to the music and those who do not. Quop 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked about that at the External Links page some time ago (see here. I have removed some links because a user claimed it was copyright and that TokyoTV was asking YouTube to take them down. I am not sure if this is the correct place to discuss the matter, though, External links seems a better place. So far, I only change the YouTube links with a  template if they are not broken already, to keep them classified in case we need to take them massively down. -- ReyBrujo 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Music Videos 

message: I've just added support for this WikiProject to my AWB plugin for adding templates to talk pages and assessing articles. Please see User:Kingbotk/Plugin for more information. --kingboyk 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB plugin 

message: A Hard Day's Night (song) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[A Hard Day's Night (song)]]

message: I see no reason for not having a "musical structure" section, in which the music itself is described (i.e. in an academic sort of way). Seeing as the music itself can be cited, this would not conflict with Wikipedia's original research policy. Also, if a user notates the music himself (as I did for "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction,") there is no reason for a segment of each song to not be notated. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical structure

message: I've noticed that pop, jazz, and blues standards never seem to have infoboxes ... see Over the Rainbow, Fly Me to the Moon, My Funny Valentine, Take the A Train, Statesboro Blues, and many others of this ilk. The Single infobox is inappropriate for these, since most of them weren't singles in the modern sense, and the current Song infobox is oriented towards non-singles from a particular album and thus also inappropriate.  Is there another kind of Song infobox out there that I'm not finding?   Wasted Time R 21:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is any sort of infobox for standards. If you look at any jazz standard, for example The Girl from Ipanema, they don't seem to have one, so it'd be safe to assume that none exist. I don't really know much about making infoboxes, but it can't be hard to adapt the songs infobox to make a new "standards" infobox. Do you want to take a try at it, or shall I? -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me ... I already spend too much time on Wikipedia, to dive into infobox writing! Take a look at the Song infobox source at , if you have experience writing computer macros you can do it, otherwise it may get a bit heavy. The box might be called Standard, and contain things like song title, music writer(s), lyricist(s) [on standards these two are often different and thus need to be broken out], genre, year written, and artist who most made the song famous (not always the first artist to record it). Should there be a line that contains all the other artists that recorded the song? That number can easily run into the dozens or more for the most popular standards.   Wasted Time R 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any experience with writing macros or the like, but I'll give it a go. Name will be Music Standards, then there will be title, composer, lyricist, genre, year written, first artist to record the piece, artist to most popularize the piece, and then I'm thinking chart standings. I think I'd be able to do this by looking at other infoboxes. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 23:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I looked at the infobox source code, and it is a completely different language to me :(. There must be somebody out there who could do this? -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What info would you put in it, besides lyricist and composer? -Freekee 03:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually found an infobox for this purpose (Template:Infobox standard). It fits our need quite well (you can see it in action at Call It Stormy Monday (But Tuesday Is Just As Bad)). -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Interesting picture on that article. :-) -Freekee 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No good infoboxes for standards

message: I was under the impression that song articles should not include tables showing a single's chart position week by week, although I can't find a specific guideline about that. Nevertheless, I don't think week-by-week tables are needed. This question arose because Don't Forget to Remember Me does include such tables. --Metropolitan90 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine what circumstances such a tracking would show notable information. Maybe to show that a single was on the charts, then fell off, then returned? But then it could better be described with text than a table. -Freekee 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion (now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts/Archive) last year in which consensus arose that chart trajectories shouldn't be included in song and album articles. Now, this discussion was a while ago, but the reasoning behind it still stands. I myself believe the presence of week-by-week chart trajectories contradicts the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy; we're supposed to provide general summaries, not fansite-like detail. Much of these statistics and numbers will mean nothing to the casual reader, and too much information is a great way of hiding what's actually relevant. Also, such trajectories can be difficult to verify. Extraordinary Machine 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week by week chart performance? 

message: I understand that there should be one article per song, and cover versions shouldn't have their own articles. I've done quite a lot of work changing articles about Will Young singles into articles about the songs, and have done some merging of cover versions and splitting of double A-sides. A couple of his covers ("The Long and Winding Road" and "Light My Fire") are now included in :Category:Will Young songs. He also did covers of the songs "Hey Ya!", "I Get the Sweetest Feeling", "Beyond the Sea (song)", etc,  but were released as B-sides (or in some cases, album tracks), so my question is, should these articles be included in Category:Will Young songs? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. If another artist had a notable version of the song, it could go in that artist's category too. -Freekee 14:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about categories and cover versions 

message: Get Back is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Get Back]]

message: Layla is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Layla]]

message: I've posted this on the WikiProject Music page too, but I'd like to offer my services in notating musical examples for any pages that may need them. You can see my work on Homophony and other pages; I think it really adds to the article. So, if anyone has any requests, fire away. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offering my services to notate excerpts of songs 

message: I noticed that the Take on Me article has spoiler warnings inserted in the music video section and found it rather ridiculous. But I don't want to step on any toes and remove it, or warnings in any other song-articles I might stumble across, if this is in fact something that you, the fine people working on articles like that, believe belong there and might even have agreed upon. I can't see any discussions about it here, but I'm not familiar with this project or its history, so I thought I should ask. Thanks. Shanes 05:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there's any discussion or history of this, but I personally think it's a bit ridiculous. GassyGuy 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've personally done this once, in the case of a recent video with a "reveal" at the end. It does look a bit ridiculous on the page, though, especially given that there's not much to summarize in the first place. For comparison, one of the better-known "reveal" videos, "Just", has no spoiler tag. –Unint 06:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warnings in music videos 

message: I don't know if there is any formal process, but I'd like to work on this WikiProject. I enjoy music a (who doesn't).-- ¢² Connor K.   19:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no formal process in joining, so welcome to the team! If you have any questions you can of course go ahead and ask here, and I'm always willing to help if you ask me. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'd Like To Join

message: The original page had a single line of text , so I redirect to the album it first appeared on Ace (album). Recently, the redirect was undone by an IP to . I reinstated the redirect, but two IPs have now called it vandalism and called me a "page black-outer". Finally, I placed a  on the page and am willing to discuss this proposal on the talk page. I believe that, unlike Truckin' or Dark Star (song), the song wasn't really notable to the band, being that they stopped playing it after 1974. The information provided on the page could easily be moved to the album page as a section after the track listing. Can someone comment? Am I in the wrong in my thinking? -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Black-Throated Wind]] 

message: Hello, all: I am visiting this project as a result of my own campaign to wipe out all Unreferenced tags from the Z section of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&from=Z
Just finished editing the Ænema page. (Yes that ligature puts it back with the Z's.) Just about everything in it was Original Research. The only link was to the lyrics of the song. I have noticed the same thing with other aspects of Pop Culture. Everybody fancies himself an Expert.
I am no Expert myself, but it is my belief that ALL the articles in WikiP must be sourced and there must be no Original Research. Is that not the same case with the Songs project? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I've been going around replacing outdated and subst'ed album and song infoboxes, and I came across something interesting at the Metallica song pages. There is one template for each album that shows up on each song page.  (example here: For Whom the Bell Tolls (song)).  I think this might be a more appropriate approach than using the song infobox in some cases, especially for songs off albums where each song has its own page, for example the Led Zeppelin song pages, since the info in each infobox is nearly identical.  Any thoughts?  --Alcuin 04:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternate approach to non-single infoboxes

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Hi, could anybody tell me who this mysterious "Strada, bishop of Bologna" is, who is mentioned in the article? Strada is Italian and means "street". And that's what google says to me. No bishop of Bologna. No list of bishops of Bologna list any "Strada". Is this a fake? we are currently discussing this in the German Wikipedia because :de:Gaudeamus igitur is candidating for the label "Lesenswert" (a kind of "featured article", second class). --Rabe! 15:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[De Brevitate Vitae]]

message: I Want to Hold Your Hand is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy (Talk) 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[I Want to Hold Your Hand]]

message: I believe that Wikipedia song articles should include the songs lyrics.  Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.101.40 (talk • contribs) 
:You're welcome. But they shouldn't, unless they're in the public domain. Most lyrics are copyrighted so we cannot legally put them in an article. It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but then where is the line drawn as to how much of the lyrics is too much for inclusion? robertjohnsonrj 17:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make sure you have something specific to say about each section of included lyric. And try not toinclude the entire song, unless it's very short. -Freekee 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who deleted the lyrics for "Let Me Entertain You" by Robbie Williams?! It took me A-A-A-A-A-AGES to get them right!! Hardly fair in the SLIGHTEST!  Jetstar888 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the preceding discussion. Alex valavanis 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put part of them in with critical commentary? Tadiew 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Having the lyrics in a song entry makes sense (post #1). Obviously (since I've rarely seen even partial lyrics quoted), there is a reason they aren't (post #2, et al). What I've been unable to find is why, and I'm asking because in the case of lyrics it is possible to provide full, verifiable credits. Separately (and less importantly), they are usually not prohibitively long, especially if they are specific to a song entry vs. an album. Is this a music industry limitation, or something else? Finally, if someone wanted to get authorized permission to use lyrics, from whom should the authorization be obtained? (And would getting this make any difference as far as allowing the lyrics in Wikipedia anyway?) I feel like Mr. Inquisitive here! Tadiew 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyrics

message: Should WikiProjectSongs have an article assessment class entitled "List"? There is one for the "albums" project. I've come across at least 1 song-list article in my current songs class assessment project so far. robertjohnsonrj 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment class=List 

message: Hi! Over at the album project, we have a list of tasks to be done, and one of them is infobox conversion. Articles with an old style of infobox, or even tables instead of templates get tagged with . Then they get added to :Category:Needs album infobox conversion. Notice how it says "album infobox"? Right now the category has over 100 articles, and most of them are songs. The reason I bring this up is I think it would be really cool of some of you guys could go through some and convert them. I'll probably do a few myself, but I thought maybe some of you might be willing to take on the task. Thanks! -Freekee 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do 

message: "It's My Life (Talk Talk song)" needs an infobox, and I'm not sure how to go about it.  The cover version by No Doubt is more notable (by which I mean it charted higher); should it have its own article?  Do I just put an infobox for Talk Talk's single?  Do I put an infobox for both?  — ShadowHalo 01:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable cover songs

message: See . This is not my field of expertise. Anyone else care to take it on? Zora 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dallas paper disses Kumbaya article 

message: I notice that the  have become very large, and what's more, categorisation of those seems to be very low.  Would there by support for an  maintenance category, on the same pattern as the existing ?  This could be periodically be populated by bot from the database dumps.  Alai 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncategorised songs 

message: Real Love (The Beatles song) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Real Love (The Beatles song)]]

message: How should I format the US charts for No Doubt's "Don't Speak"?  It didn't chart on the Billboard Hot 100 because it wasn't released as a single for quite awhile.  But it did chart #2 on the Modern Rock Tracks and #6 on Adult Contemporary.  Should I include these in the infobox; if so, how should I format them?  — ShadowHalo 07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It seems unnecessary to put it in the infobox since the chart info on various U.S. charts is already hosted elsewhere in the article. GassyGuy 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting Charts

message: I've been removing chart trajectories based on WP:MUSIC's decision here, but it seems odd that one has to link to an archive for something like this.  Is it alright if I add the decision about chart trajectories to the WP:SONG page? — ShadowHalo 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart trajectories

message: Rather large assumptions in the categories section:  "Song articles should be placed into two categories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by artist ("Category:<Artist name> songs") and a subcategory of Category:Songs by year"
In the discussion for the article Willie's Lady, someone asked the necessary questions:  "It was written in olde English- what year? by who?"  Then I provided the same answer to both questions:  No one knows.  
Even songs by known authors may not have years.  Goldfritha 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like adding a simple "When the information is available and applicable" to the end of that would fix it.  Any objections?  — ShadowHalo 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Goldfritha 00:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Where the information is unknown to the author, or indeed unknown to the-sum-of-human-knowledge, why not place it in a  category, or a broader "era" cat?  Alai 13:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an category for unknown years is just creating a category so the songs will be in a category.  Since the category itself wouldn't be serving much of a purpose, it seems excessive.  But doing one for eras is a possibility.  How many songs are there that could go in the "era" categories?  — ShadowHalo 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unknown in the weak sense, or indeed present in the article, but just not categorised that way, then a "category missing" maintenance category would serve as a useful cleanup resource (if anyone is interested in 'cleaning up' on the basis).  If the year is unknown in the strong sense, then that's itself a notable fact, and it avoids confusion with the first case (and mistaken repeated addition to such a category).  Alai 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Is there a precedent for songs that switched names between albums? Snakes on a Plane (Bring It) was renamed to Bring It (Snakes on a Plane) sometime between its release on Snakes on a Plane: The Album and Cobra Starship's newest album. There is some discussion on the talk page about the name, and the question was asked whether this had any precedent, so I figured the wikiproject would be best able to answer that.--Miguel Cervantes 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick one and make it a redirect to the other. Which one is which probably doens't matter all that much, but use the "bigger" version. -Freekee 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple song names 

message: Just thought I should query whether this article (Star (Bryan Adams song)) should have a substantial proportion made up of lyrics, that are presumably copyrighted? 149.155.96.5 16:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: I note that Guantanamera is in:Category:Joan Baez songs - surely that is wrong ? Otherwise Guantanemera has to go in the categories for everyone who has covered it. -- Beardo 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it was a notable version. I notice she's not mentioned in the song article, so I'd say no. Generally, if anyone had a hit with it, it's probably worth categorizing. There are quite a few songs in multiple artist categories. -Freekee 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guantanamera 

message: This project's guidelines currently state:
:Links to external websites that provide lyrics and music videos belong in the "External links" section.
:...
:Please note: If there is proof that the copyright holder is actively attempting to remove the song's lyrics or music video from the linked page, please do not link to that site's particular page.
I'm not sure this is in line with the official policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works:
:If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).
:
:Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
Does there really need to be "proof" that a copyright holder is actively seeking to remove the lyrics from the site? On the contrary, it seems like there needs to be positive proof that the hosting site actually has permission before links to lyrics on external sites are used in song articles.
I have requested a copyright infringement check for links to Prince lyrics hosted on dtt-lyrics.com at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 December 17/Articles. Mike Dillon 22:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See restrictions on linking. This has been discussed a lot of times at EL, the latest being here (soon to be archived). Some sites have agreement with record companies to post their lyrics, but most just use them without caring about copyright. I completely disagree with the "if the copyright owner does not sue, it is fine" concept, that would allow us to link to torrents for software until the software company decides to sue the tracker. -- ReyBrujo 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. The comments in the discussion you linked to that are stating that you should assume there is no problem if there is not an explicit mention of permission one way or the other are pretty ridiculous. Given the prevelance of copyright infringement on the Internet and the generally draconian stance taken by the copyright holders of most modern music, I can't see how one can do anything but assume that sites that can't prove their permission don't have it. In the case of the dtt-lyrics.com site that I mentioned, they explicitly state that they don't have permission and are claiming "fair use" on the lyrics of hundreds of Prince songs. Thanks for pointing out that discussion and the more directly relevant section from WP:EL. Mike Dillon 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to lyrics sites 

message: It seems like singles should be named after the a-side song, but I've been seeing quite a lot of singes named for the a-side and the b-side songs, such as Song A/Song B. Is this right? Should we put a stop to it? What about double A-side singles? -Freekee 16:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say that it's a problem. Double a-side singles: each song should have its own article. The chart information will be the same, but the songs themselves will have distinct histories (songwriters, other artists to perform it, etc.). GassyGuy 22:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention: singles

message: I've recently had a minor edit conflict with a member of this project. He basically cited WP:SONGS as a justification for reverting my edits. Regardless of the merits or not of my or his edits/approach there a serious issue here.
The way the edit summaries were phrased suggested WP:SONGS was something it's not. WP:SONGS is NOT a policy. Hell it's not even a guideline. It's a wikiproject. As such it has no authority to dictate how song articles are presented on wikipedia. And members of this project have no business trying to force other editors to conform to this projects ideas of how subjects should be presented. By all means discuss, and suggest looking at/contributing to this project as a way of building consensus. But I DON'T want to see more edit summaries saying "Revert. Does not follow WP:SONGS." or anything of that nature. exolon 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *While WP:SONG may not be official policy, it does reflect an established consensus, which is very much necessary for WP to function. With respect to articles for different versions of the same song, the idea here is that this violates policy found at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Merging, and so it is not done. Typically, someone will link to WP:SONG as justification not because it is a policy page, but because it outlines this already, as the discussion has already been had. GassyGuy 01:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, WP:MM isn't a policy or even a guideline. Also, the song in question here is Disco Inferno (The Trammps song). exolon is trying to keep that article solely about the original version and does not want information about covers in the article. Mike Dillon 06:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We do need to maintain a certain amount of consistency so the readers can find information easily, and to reduce edit warring. This is not to say that you are wrong in going against consensus, but that you can't ignore it lightly. -Freekee 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who cited WP:SONGS to exolon regarding "Disco Inferno".  I'm aware this is a WikiProject, but as was stated by GassyGuy, I was assuming that the project was developed via a discussion and consensus by many editors.  I wasn't trying to be a jerk, but if I'm not allowed to cite WP:SONGS as a reason for my edits, then why even have the project page?  For months and months now, "(single)" articles have been moved to "(song)" and cover versions have been combined into the same article, etc.  I've worked on several of them, and so I didn't think that my edit to "Disco Inferno" was unusual.  I do want to say that I am not using WP:SONGS as a "my way or the highway" approach - if people feel that song articles should be formatted differently and people want to re-open the discussion, I'll be more than happy to contribute to it.  - eo 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Problem 

message: This list is a disaster.  I've been spending a lot of time removing songs by non-notable artists, but an even bigger problem with this list is that very few of the songs listed actually qualify as protest songs.  The list is divided into several topical categories (Abortion, Drugs, War, etc.), and I'm finding that most of these songs do little more than mention or allude to the topic in question--they're not really protesting anything.  If anyone wants to help me clean up this list, it would be appreciated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help cleaning up the [[List of protest songs]] article

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Sub-categories of :Category:Songs by artist have the format, :Category:Artist X songs.  Sub-categories of :Category:Songs by composer/:Category:Songs by lyricist have the format :Category:Songs by Composer/Lyricist X.  While I can think of reasons why one might want these two different formats, it poses a problem if the composer/lyricist is also a performer.  Do we really want to have a category of Songs by Hank Williams of songs that he wrote, and another category called Hank Williams songs for all songs that he recorded, or should we have one format that is used all-around?  In any case, fixing this looks like a major project for someone with a bot--and that wouldn't be me. -MrFizyx 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I would like to direct your attention to User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album) (talk page), where we are drafting up new criteria for album notability. The single criterion we have right now just won't do! If you disagree with what is there, please make suggestions! (Originally from WikiProject Music) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New album notability guidelines? 

message: Could someone go through WP:SONG's featured articles and rate them on the importance scale?  It seems like at the very least, the FA's should reflect how we want articles to be.  ShadowHalo 18:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: Are these allowed?  I'm seeing them pop up more often.  A current example: Jesus, Take the Wheel.  The "last" and "next" single covers are shown as little thumbnails in the chronology.  I'm tempted to remove them but I don't know how image policies work with these.  Anyone have a clue? - eo 02:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a consensus that it's not fair use at all. Jogers has been working to remove them, I think. –Unint 03:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images in chronology section of infoboxes?

message: A quick overview for newcomers: The Kingbotk Plugin is a set of add-on tools for the wiki editor, AWB. In bot mode it offers robust templating for WikiProjects. In manual mode, it can also be used to help editors assess articles quickly and efficiently.
Per requests, myself and  have just released a new version of the Kingbotk Plugin which is compatible with the latest AWB. To make things even easier, the plugin now ships with AWB. You may also have noticed my bot running over the last few days, testing the new version.
Since your WikiProject is one of the few which are programatically supported it's important that you inform us of any important changes to your WikiProject's template which have occurred in the last few months.
*The most important change we should know about is new redirects to your template. If your template could possibly be used on talk pages with a different name unknown to the plugin, double templating could result. Please take the time to check for redirects to your project's template - somebody might have created one without you noticing.
*Deprecated or removed parameters. We don't want complaints that the plugin is using old syntax now do we? :)
*Not critical in terms of annoying the masses, but for your own convenience you might want to let us know of any new parameters that the plugin needs to support. Remember, it only needs to support parameters which will be added by bots or which are useful in the article assessment process.
I hope you still find the tool useful. Comments, questions and bug reports to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingbotk Plugin 

message: I saw in the The Sweet Escape (song) article a message: "Do not add the United World Chart to this list as it violates the guidelines set by the Wikiproject Songs". Where exactly does it say that in WP:SONG? More importantly, why can't the United World Chart be used in the "Chart Positions" section in the infobox. If it really can't be used, it should say that in the WikiProject page somewhere.... RaNdOm26 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought the UWC was ok to use also?  If not, there are about a trillion music articles that will need to be updated. - eo 10:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but the convention I've seen in nearly every article has been to use the national charts (usually the English-speaking ones and non-English-speaking ones where it charted high) and, on occasion, the smaller Billboard charts (Pop 100, Rhythmic Top 40, etc.).  ShadowHalo 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe using the UWC is a problem for the Chart positions section. It at least gives some indication of how well the song did in a worldwide perspective. RaNdOm26 11:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United World Chart 

message: I'm curious as to why a cover version, yet not the original has been articled here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertechnician (talk • contribs) 
:What exactly is your question in reference to? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (S)he's referring to the article named Uh La La La.  ShadowHalo 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh la la la 

message: Hi.  I just added the  template to Talk:Single (music) while closing a move request there.  I don't really know whether that article belongs more properly to this project or to the Albums WikiProject, so if I mis-judged, can someone please fix that?  Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Single (music)]] 

message: A couple of editors have been filling articles with chart listing (both in infoboxes and in tables) from Lithuania, Romania, Latvia, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.  At this rate, articles will be swamped with such "information".  Is there an approved list of charts for inclusion?  --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 23:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any particular reason why Latvia, Sweden, The Netherlands, and other countries' charts would be somehow less notable than other potential countries' charts? GassyGuy 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the tables of charts are there to give readers information about its chart positions in specific countries and an overview of its performance overall, so it can be argued that charts for countries such as Latvia contribute little extra insight when there are positions available for larger markets.  However, our World music market article does list Sweden and the Netherlands as being in the top twenty music markets.  (On a similar note, can someone find a source for the statistics there?)  ShadowHalo 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a little mixed on how to deal with this.  I want to avoid adding anything too official about this other than keeping it below XXX number of positions, mainly because of WP:CREEP.  I would just say that when the tables get too big, just trim them down by removing the charts for markets that make up a non-notable amount of the market (e.g. Latvia).  ShadowHalo 09:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have some sympathy for that view, in the end I think that it would be a bad move; we should say what is relevant to and appropriate in an article, not what can be added to pad it out until the article gets big enough, then it can be ditched.  Moreover, leaving it vague as to what can and can't be removed is going to lead to some edit-warring down the line. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 10:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ShadowHalo makes good points regarding WP:CREEP and the insight offered by such extra data.  I also don't see why charts representing markets within the Anglosphere should have priority.  It seems to me that you are suggesting a new rule to solve a somewhat hypothetical problem "down the line."  On the other hand, since the source of these chart data are not obvious, you should always be able to require a citation from editors who wish to add them. -MrFizyx 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that such an opinion is in contradiction with the policy, WP:NPOV, which suggest that we should avoid nationalistic bias.  Perhaps if you provide some of the examples of artcles that suffer from being "swamped with such information," others will better understand the problem and like-minded editors may help you clean-up. -MrFizyx 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. -MrFizyx 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of charts 

message: Many songs have been covered and it would be possible to have multiple infoboxes. This wouldn't be a problem if some songs hadn't been covered numerous times. For example the song "You Shook Me" I created an infobox for Muddy Waters' single. A Led Zeppelin one was later added, but not a Jeff Beck. Jeck Beck did the song before Led Zeppelin, so if they deserve one Beck most certainly does as well. The problem is that three infoboxes would expand well beyond all the text of the article and wouldn't look right. Would it be better to have only a Muddy Waters infobox or to add a Jeff Beck one?ufossuck 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases like this, I like the unofficial alternative infobox, User:Flowerparty/Test (See talk page for useage).  It isn't a pretty box and maybe is not endorsed by this WikiProject.  Still, you may want to take a look. -MrFizyx 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple infoboxes 

message: I wanted to get some input on the usefulness of  (see Mi Sangre for an example).  I was going to make some major changes to it, but I want to bring it here first to see if there would be consensus behind it.  As is, the entries take up way too much space and provide completely unnecessary detail.  Take The Sweet Escape; do we really need to know the track listing for each release of all of the singles when it's only an article about the album?  Similarly, is it reasonable to include single covers and thorough lists of chart positions in an article about the album?  With only two and a half singles, that section takes up half the article, and it seems just to be duplicating articles about the singles in a list-heavy format, when it should really be contained in prose.  ShadowHalo 06:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are a nightmare.  I don't know who made this template or why I'm suddenly seeing them everywhere in album articles, but these are completely unnecessary.  Mi Sangre is a perfect example, and I can provide more.  This template provides almost everything that is already in the individual song/singles articles.  Completely redundant, complete overkill.  If there's anything that makes music articles look like fanpages, these are it.  I'd love to see them disappear. - eo 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every attempt at designing a template solution to discographical information always seem to go awry (see  also). I'd argue the same for track listings in wikitables. How about trying to make something that formats as straightforward text? –Unint 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?  Something that automatically manufactures prose?  ShadowHalo 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Single entry]] 

message: Some time ago it was agreed that the "#" sign was generally unnecessary and undesirable (what else are "1", "37", etc., if not numbers?).  They seem to have found themselves back into the infobox; was there a reason for this?  I can't find it in the archives. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For chart numbers? I have to say I can't recall the original agreement you're referring to. Maybe it just looks natural to a lot of people? The thing is, if you want to institute a widespread change like that, you'll probably want to make sure there are no remaining counterexamples that new editors may use as a template. –Unint 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be in the archives of the Talk Page of WP:CHARTS..... however, if I remember correctly the discussion was specifically about the use of "#" in charts/discography tables, not song/album infoboxes.  I think. - eo 11:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My guess is that it's because, from my personal experiences, tables that have a column of numbers generally avoid including non-numeric symbols in the column (for instance, units will be stated in the header).  Just a guess though.  ShadowHalo 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 

message: On the page for John Denver a link to a complete list of songs would be good, also a list of movies and television shows in which his music has been featured. Personally I am looking for the title of a movie in which Paradise was featured in the credits. If anyone knows this let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccluresm (talk • contribs) 
:Definitely ask that at the talk page itself. –Unint 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Denver Song Request 

message: As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter".  The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info.  The second is , which hides all the banners in a one-line box (see Smells Like Teen Spirit as an example).  As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the major disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members.  The third option is , which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).
Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter.  I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it.  I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option (code).  As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there.  If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.
Just a couple of the 20+ projects that have already implemented this option include: WP:MILHIST, WP:LGBT, WP:ALBUM, WP:India, WP:AVIATION, and WP:CCM.
Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small alteration to your banner 

message: I have been trying to improve the God Save the Queen article. It is a notable song and has been sung regularly for at least 250 years (despite the fact that both words and tune are excruciatingly awful....sorry, is that POV?) I am trying to understand how the resources of this project (eg song template) might be applied in this case but it doesn't work too well. There isn't even a known author of either the words or the music, so not much to put in a template! Any ideas please? Bluewave 12:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: God Save the Queen