Wikipedia talk:Notability (songs)/Archive 1

message: We read:
*the Top 40 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country
*a song that hit the Top 20 on a major country's chart
I don't suppose geographical area matters all that much. So what does matter -- population? Compared with Indonesia, let alone China, most countries seem insignificant, and I've a feeling that the notion of "medium" is affected by where one has lived. (For Germans, ten million would be small; for Latvians, large.) I dunno ... could one say twenty million? Or do something less arbitrary like 40% of the median national population? (But why 40 and not 30 or 50 or whatever?)
Whatever the population, it will be a lot less than the populations of speakers of a number of, say, Indian languages; and for all I know there are charts of Gujarati, Malayalam and other hits. It could then seem a little, um, "nationalocentric" to automatically include top forty hits of Romania (pop. 22M) but not those of Gujarati-speaking India (pop. 43M).
(Though I've a dark suspicion that some people take "major" to mean "anglophone".)
Another thing. Let's imagine that some musically, politically, socially (etc) insignificant song manages to be top of the pops in Estonia (pop. under one and a half million) for a whole year. I think that this alone would make it significant. Or anyway, a simple binary rule "'Chart performance' is a criterion for significance when population (or area, or market size or whatever) is above X; not when it's below this" is unreasonable.
Just some ideas half-thought-up while not completely awake. -- Hoary 14:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of this, but there is a problem that needs to be dealt with — not with how "major" a country is, but with how major a chart is.  Pop music seems to generate a train-spotter's heaven of charts, statistics, etc., and you could probably find some chart somewhere on which just about any record made it to the top (this is esepcially true in the U.S., from what I can see). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's a case for saying that how "major" a chart is depends on what you're describing. (Part-analogy: the inch is not a major unit of length, but it is major when describing the [idealized rather than actual] diagonals of telly and computer screens.) How about a limit of X charts per nation (or geographical area, language-group, etc.) per song? X might equal, oh, three or thereabouts. -- Hoary 09:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Large or medium-sized country", etc

message: I don't know why we need so many arguments-for the most part this seems pretty straightforward. I understand that having TOO many songs just gets kind of pointless, but people should just use common sense. Obviously, a Japanese import limited edition Sex Pistols B-side is probably not going to merit much of an entry and if people are dumb enough to go through the trouble of putting up one line about it fine-just delete it. But it seems like it is a bit unbalanced the other way as well. I mean, really, the Beatles were good, but do we really need reviews for, like, 1/6th (or something) of the entire Beatles catalog? That's 60 songs. A but much if you ask me, considering there are three entries for The Smiths songs and none for Fugazi. Does "Think For Yourself" (which is probably only the die-hard Beatles fan would acknowledge as a "relevant" and "successful" song) really merit an entry, when songs such as "This Charming Man", "How Soon Is Now", or "Wating Room", all considered groundbreaking and excellent have NO entry? Probably not. Yes, a die hard Beatlemanic or Sex Pistols fan or Smashing Pumpkin fan could probably write paragraphs upon paragraphs about every song their band has ever written. But is it nessecary? No. Just use common sense people.
:You know what, maybe that's because nobody has bothered writing about the Smiths songs! I love both bands and I certainly feel that the Smiths have written some notable songs, but Wikipedia articles don't appear by magic. Get writing! --kingboyk 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Relevant Songs"

message: We need clear and enforced rules for song article inclusion, because the fancruft is getting overwhelming. I agree with several previous suggestions, and also add my own:
*ONLY notable songs deserve articles. What makes a song notable? In most cases, a major and notable hit for its performer. Note that not every single or even every hit by an artist is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Every Ashlee Simpson, Mariah Carey, R. Kelly, Michael Jackson (no, not even Michael; do we really need a seperate article on, say, "Just a Little Bit of You"?) Joe or Jane Blow record that ever came out does not inherently deserve an article, and articles on their albums should never appraoch a legnth that would require such. No, Wikipedia is not paper, but it is aso not a depository for overinformation. The Supremes' "Love is Like an Itching in My Heart" was a #9 hit, but it does not deserve an article because it is otherwise not notable. The same could probably be said for The Temptations' "My Baby", for which I only created an article because I needed one for its (far more notable) b-side, "Don't Look Back" (if anyone wants to V, er, Afd the "My Baby" article, I won't miss it). (*update* I just redirect the "My Baby" article to its proper album, to hopefully establish precedent)Ike & Tina Turner's "River Deep - Mountain High" didn't make the Top 40, but it is still a highly notable song because of Phil Spector's participation, and the popularity it recieved after its original release.
*#Logic should be able to dictate whether or not a recording is notable enough for a seperate article. A notable song article should be at least three paragraphs of prose that does not involve a summarization of chart performance or production credits. The article itself should tell us why the song is notable. Is it the band's signature song? THen it's notable. Is it a member of the band's specialty number? Then it might be notable, if it wasn't a hit or doesn't typically appear on one of their greatest hits albums, leave it out. Was it a number one hit? Then, yes, it's notable (I believe the Hot 100 editors are creating their own articles, though, for each #1 US pop hit). Did it when a major award? (A Grammy or AMA; we shouldn't be writing articles for songs that won a Source Hip-Hop Award, a BET Award, or even an MTV VMA, for that matter) Then, yes, it is notable. Is it on that Rolling Stone list of 500 songs that shaped rock and roll? Then, by all means, write an article for it.
*#The idea of creating articles for every single an artist ever rleeased (or planned to release) is too much. For example, Mariah Carey's cover of "Do You Know Where You're Going To", a cancelled single release that did not chart and is otherwise not notable, does not need its own article. In fact, the original Diana Ross version doesn't need an article either (the Mariah Carey version somehow recieved an article first; the Diana Ross information was added to it, and then an editor split them in two). In this case, "Do You Know Where You're Going To" should not have an article of its own in any form or fashion. Footnotes in the articles for Mahogany (1975 film). Diana Ross (1976 album), and Mariah's #1s will suffice.
*#As far as standards and other notable compositions that are 50 years old and older, those certainly deserve articles.
*#I can't stress this enough: DO NOT create seperate articles for songs that are different recordings of the same composition. For problem cases like "I Heard it Through the Grapevine", where several people recorded notable hit versions of the record, we should create a custom infobox that explains that establishes the song's original composeres and performers, and then breaks down each notable cover (the infobox should litterally have sections labeled as such).
*#A table for chart positions is fine, but I'm not sure that a list of all availab;le remixes and alternate versions is neccessary.
*Concerning "notable album tracks", the song only deserves an impact if it has influence and notablility beyond its existence as track whatever on My Favorite Band's Album. It had to have been highly controversial ("Ether" by Nas),  a signature song ("Hum Along and Dance", as relating to the Jackson 5 version), had some sort of groundbreaking or widespread impact, or some other notable element other than "this is a song fro mthis album, this is who produced it, this is who played on it, and this is where they recorded it."
Any more sugestions, please add them on. We need to buckle on down on this now. --FuriousFreddy 05:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm strongly with Freddy on #1 above. Is there something worth saying about the song? Many song articles I've seen just say Songname is a song by band on their album albumtitle. We should propose that any article with no more than that is a substub subject to speedy deletion. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I Second That Emotion" --FuriousFreddy 16:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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

text: I've moved all this to this subpage to coordinate efforts.  At the top of this page, I've tried to summarize all the proposed guidelines with a note on why they may or may not be acceptable. Tuf-Kat 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find a lot of this to be unacceptable. Especially since Freddy has a personal vendetta involved. OmegaWikipedia 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "personal vendetta?" I don't even know you. You could be, for all I know, my mother's preacher, or an award-winning humantiarian. I have no opinion of you personally, and I have no ill opinion when you write good articles on notable songs. I do, hwever, have an opinion about your edits, and it is that they do not fit the guidelines of the project and are not in the best interests of the Wikipedia as a whole. This is about establishing notability, keeping the encyclopedia accessible and readable for visitors, maintaining a neutral point of view, and not turning the Wikipedia into a repository for all existing information relating to female pop stars. This isn't about you as a person, and this isn't just about your edits. YOu're hardly the only editor making these articles. If I wanted a vendetta, I'd AfD every article you ever wrote, which is not only rediculous, but would also get me banned. --FuriousFreddy 03:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (via edit conflict) Do you find the whole idea unacceptable?  Or just the involvement of Freddy?  Do you have a list of approved individuals that can participate?  The first four guidelines don't even come from Freddy.  Tuf-Kat 03:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I have to agree and disagree on some points. Some people are overdoing it adding album tracks - those should never be allowed (Some Mariah Carey album tracks should be deleted along with that Nas article). I think a single should have at least 
*remixes
*music video
*or some decent promotional campaign of some sort
But I wasnt thrilled when someone added an article on some songs. OmegaWikipedia 03:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

text: There are far too many songs with a remix or a music video; I know unsigned rappers who have several songs with both. Notability should be established with other criteria. Based upon the above suggestions, here is a summarized proposal:
**Any stub article on a song, regurdles of popularity or performance, that states only basic information (who sung it, when, on what album ,and how well it did on a chart) should be speedily redirect to a proper article on the album or on the artist. In fact, before writing a song article, it is always best to see if the song can be mentioned in an existing article. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not free web server for highly detailed and annotated discographies. Every song, not even every hit song, is not inherently notable just because it was a hit, and, therefore, every single by every artist does not need an article.
**Any non-stub album on a song that hit the Top 20 on a major country's chart can remain without issue.
**Any article on a single that charted below #20 on a country's major chart needs to establish notablility in its text: "it is so-and-so's signiture song", "it was written to help starving children in Timbuktu", "it is considered among their most notable by music critics" etc., something other than "the song was recorded like this, released like this, and charted like this." In other words, the record had to have done something to or for someone somewhere which makes it notable in its own right outside of its album. This also goes for album tracks (which is why Nas' Ether deserves its own article.
**For the love of Mike, be careful about "getting too gushy about your favorite band". Things I see all over, like bolding #1's and Top ten positions, NPOV language, articles about songs an artist was featured on being more about the featured artist than the proper artist, articles about cover versions of songs being made without even covering the original (save for possibly one sentence), seperate articles on cover versions of the same song (orignal established precedent--and I asked about this when I first got here--is one article per composition, which doesn't seem to be unreasonable at all.), improper infobox color coding, and other things that reduce the encyclopediaicness (I hope that's a word) of the project.
**I'm still not sold on including songwriters and music video directors in the infoboxes. Songwriters would get ot be a problem for a song with a lot of authors (say, a Wu-Tang song), and music video directors are only arbitrarially related to a song. A chart or credits list would work better and be easier to read, although this particular item is not a big deal (yet).
**And finally, again I emphasize: ONE article per composition. The Jackson 5 recorded a hit version of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" in 1970, but it does not deserve its own seperate article; a passing mention will suffice. Seperate articles for every version of "Something" would not be a good idea, either. 
--FuriousFreddy 03:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ditto to basically everything there, Fred. However, I think songwriters should be featured in the infoboxes for songs. They are, in my opinion, nearly as important as the singer/musician to the song, since it's their composition. However, when it comes to many members of a band or group, I think just the group name would suffice. For example: instead of crediting "The Red" to Pete Loeffler, Dean Bernadini, and Sam Loeffler; credit it to Chevelle. This happens often enough in cd booklets as it is, so I think it's acceptable for an encyclopedia. What really is important is that the level of biased contributions and fancruft be reduced. The whole Mariah Carey situation (not just her, there's others, I'm sure) just brings the credibility of this entire venture down. Volatile 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I don't know. The video of "Dreamlover" includes "the first appearance of Carey's dog Jack." There's no article about him. For The Emancipation of Mimi, "Wendy Williams asked explicit questions about Carey's sex life and the names of her breasts". There's no article about them (and we don't even get to learn their names). Much, much more could be added. (NB I'm not suggesting this.) Er, but why are we discussing this here and not on the "discussion" page? -- Hoary 08:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrugs* This is where the discussion got moved. I dunno if it should be here or there. Long as it's somewhere. --FuriousFreddy 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The one about "if the article becomes over long or imbalanced" (not numbered) is sort of iffy. It would be very easy for an editor to go into extensive detail on a song in order to secure a position for it as a seperate article (indeed, that is part of the issue here to begin with). Also, a section on a cover of a song that is not the most notable version of the song should not be longer than that on the most notable version. Succinctness needs to be at play here, and so should balance and a neutral point of view.
Also, #3 is potentially problematic as well. If an album is truly notable, shouldn't its article be long enough to detail each song on it (unless the album is made up of more than one disc, record, or tape)? #5 and #9 should require attribution in their articles; otherwise they should be subject to speedy merging or speedy deletion. As far as #7, an artist's signature song(s) is/are reasonably determinable; All Music Guide often lists them sepeately in their artist discographies. --FuriousFreddy 04:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the proposed guidelines above

message: I'm responding here instead of on the proposal page.  It seems to me that "just use common sense" isn't working out well (see Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song)), but also that there's not a clear community consensus on the issue (see that article's AfD).  As I mentioned in the AfD of You Give Good Love, moving the song information into their own articles leaves the actual album article looking like, well, a marketing report (see Whitney Houston (album)).  Furthermore, because there is often rather little to say about singles, singles articles are being inflated by having paragraph-long discussion of individual reviews of that single (see this edit of mine for example).  I'd like to encourage as much as possible that guidelines for articles about songs should never starve the album articles for information, and to strongly discourage fan-forum-like analysis of individual reviews.  There are FAs on singles, and I definitely think Wp is enhanced by them.  But right now we seem to be losing track of the Encyclopedia mission and robbing the larger internet of brilliant, devoted fansite creators.  Not ideal.  Jkelly 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholly agreed. The only acts that should emphasize singles over albums are older singles-based acts. Nearly all of the articles on singles in the female-pop-muisc area of the project could easily be cut down, merged, or outright deleted. The problem is that the people who make them, while well-intentioned, don't understand the WIkipedia standard (or the encylopedic standard). Most of them even take it as a personal affront when anyone attempts to try to cleanup or cut down any of them (one user accused me of nominating some of those Mariah Carey articles for deletion because I did not like her, which is not true). Truth be told, they aren't the only obsessive fans here (see The Simpsons and related articles). --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely worth pointing out, and I have a lot more sympathy for  the "article on every recording of every song" viewpoint than I do for the television-, video game- and card game-, um, over-representation on Wp.  Another thing worth pointing out is the very interesting response that User:Capitalistroadster made here to our conversation about the issue.  A different view on the subject than mine, perhaps, but I was very pleased to read it, because it was a much better entry into a real conversation about our goals here than what I've encountered so far.  Jkelly 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have a lot to say, other than that the above makes several very good points, and that, if we are going to go forward in trying to establish some guidelines as to which songs should get articles, we absolutely need to take into account a number of factors, including changes in the industry through time.  I think the difficulty is going to be coming up with something that makes sense, is flexible enough to handle things like "Hollaback Girl", while setting a standard that ensures Wp doesn't become free fansite hosting.  It may be that I am overly interested in some sort of firm standards because of recent events, and I should be taking a longer view, but I'd like to see something that is the equivalent of "Fails WP:Music" so that we can start cleaning up a little before somebody decides to devote weeks to making individual articles on every song by Spandau Ballet and Kajagoogoo.  Jkelly 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jkelly.  I'd love for there to be firm standards on songs, but I have grave doubts there will ever be consensus for such a thing.  I guess one issue is that song articles should really only rarely be deleted -- normally, they'd at least redirect to the album or something.  Capitalistroadster makes some good points about songs from the pre-album area that are worth considering, though I'd be fine with just coming up with guidelines on modern songs.  When was the last time this has been issue for recordings from before 1965 or so?  (That's a serious question; I'm sure it's happened, but can't think of any examples) Tuf-Kat 04:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Capitalistroadster had to save "Drunken Sailor" from an AfD.  Jkelly 02:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles and Album tracks getting articles 

message: Regarding articles on singles and songs, I think we need to take into account historical trends in music in assessing the notability of songs/album tracks for Wikipedia. I think that the suggestion of covering them in album articles is not always appropriate.
Firstly, there are notable songs dating well before the introduction of albums or even the gramophone record. Some national anthems such as "God Save the Queen", "The Star-Spangled Banner" "La Marseillaise" or even "Advance Australia Fair". Also, there are significant patriotic songs such as "America the Beautiful" and "Waltzing Matilda" became known before the widespread popularity of the phonograph.
Traditional folk songs such as the Sea shanty "Drunken Sailor" or "What shall we do with the drunken sailor" date back well before the development of the gramophone. Similarly , there are notable songs from classical music and opera dating well before the gramophone. Hymns and other religious ongs often date well before the introduction of the gramophone.
"Nessun Dorma", "Ode to Joy" and "Toreador Song" are all notable songs from classical music/opera dating before the widespread popularity of records. "Nessun Dorma" is probably better known than Turandot the opera from which it came.
Even when records were introduced, songs dominated for the first half of the century with albums out of the price range of many. Having a million selling song was an indication of success. Many popular songs became hits as a result of being featured in Broadway shows written by people such as Irving Berlin or movies. The songs in the Great American Songbook date from that period and many first saw light as part of movies or Broadway shows than on recordings. The first million selling record was "The Darktown Strutter's Ball" written by Shelton Brooks in 1917 see . The first million-selling album probably dates from much later.
Albums came into their own in the latter half of the twentieth century. Looking at our List of best-selling albums, the heyday of the album in popular music is between 1965 and 2000. For example, the Whitney Houston album  cited by user JKelly is a notable example selling 13 million in the US and becoming successful throughout the world. Nonetheless, the singles from that article deserve articles in my view as one won a Grammy and several topped the pop or r&b charts in the US and elsewhere.
Even so, overemphasis on albums in the rock and roll period could lead to an overemphasis on certain artists as compared to others. compare and contrast List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time with List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Soul artists and 1950's artists such as Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and Little Richard do considerably better on the second list while "classic rock" artists do better in the first. 
One hit wonders are generally best known for singles not albums. Similarly, some genres such as dance music will be poorly represented if too great an emphasis is placed on albums as opposed to singles/songs. "Pump Up the Volume" by M/A/R/R/S from 1987 is a very notable song in the history of dance music going to number one in the UK.
The heyday of albums has passed. Since 2000, there has been a strong decline in album sales. This Reuter's article shows that album sales in the US are down by between 8% and 10% see 
In contrast, digital music sales through online musical services and ringtone downloads has more than tripled this year  with peer-to-peer networks progressively being closed down. While it still is only 6 per cent of revenue, there will be a clear move towards digital music distribution emphasising songs as opposed to albums. We should take this clear trend into account in assessing the relative importance of albums and songs. As well, more tracks are available for download apart from singles. 
Does this mean we should have an article on every one of the two million tracks available on iTunes? No. 
Editors should consider this before creating an article. Can it be reasonably expanded beyond one line with verifiable material other than song lyrics. Run-of-the-mill songs can't so they shouldn't have articles. Things that should be taken into consideration when assessing their notability. 
* Is it a song with special significance such as a National anthem, well known national song such as a National anthem or national song. US State songs and any other provincial songs of note are worthy of consideration as well.
* Is it a traditional song of note such as a folk song etc that has been recorded or performed by a range of notable performers or been used in a variety of contexts ie movies etc?
* Is it a well known song from an opera, musical, movie, television show or radio performances?
* Is it a well known hymn frequently used in religious services or other religious song of significance?
* Has it charted in a large or medium sized country and how well did it perform on the charts? Have musical industry bodies such as the Recording Industry Association of America or the Australian Record Industry Association awarded it platinum or gold status in the relevant country? Has it been downloaded from legitimate pay sites a significant number of times  - "Hollaback Girl by Gwen Stefani recently became the first song to achieve a million legal digital downloads see
? Has it been widely used as a ringtone? The "Crazy Frog" ringtone became the first ringtone to top the Australian and UK charts?
* Has it won or been nominated for a significant award recognising songs ie Grammy, Juno, ARIA or Brit awards for example? Has it been nominated for or won awards in significant genre awards ie Country Music Awards. Has the video been nominated or won a MTV Video Music Award?
* Is the song of general interest to the public as shown by discussion of it in newspapers, books and websites? Is their verifiable information available about how it was written or produced for example?
* Has the song been listed as a significant example by a respected source of its type see Rolling Stone lists mentioned above The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll or Q Magazine lists or the Triple J Hottest 100? 
* Has the song been used in other contexts? Have other acts achieved success with it when they covered it? Has been used in movies, television shows or on notable advertising campaigns? Even use in sporting events - "You'll Never Walk Alone" first appeared in Carousel in 1945 was covered by artists including Frank Sinatra, Elvis and Patti LaBelle. As a result of being covered by Gerry & the Pacemakers and topping the UK charts became the anthem of Liverpool F.C. 
This is the sort of historical information that establishes notability. For that reason, we should have one article per song with sections if necessary to discuss notable versions by particular artists so that the reader understands the history of the song. We shouldn't have an article on Whitney Houston's or Jimi Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner. Both versions should be covered in the main article. This doesn't apply for different notable songs with the same name - "God Save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols should not be merged with the British national anthem for instance although they should be cross-referenced. 
What should an editor do if he or she considers that a song doesn't meet the above notability criteria. He or she should:
* Put the information on the relevant article about the album if that is the best place for it;
* Put the information on the page for the relevant opera, musical, film, opera or television show if that is the best place for it. 
* Put the information in the article for the relevant artist, songwriter or composer if that is the best place for it.
Capitalistroadster 09:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a lot to say, other than that the above makes several very good points, and that, if we are going to go forward in trying to establish some guidelines as to which songs should get articles, we absolutely need to take into account a number of factors, including changes in the industry through time.  I think the difficulty is going to be coming up with something that makes sense, is flexible enough to handle things like "Hollaback Girl", while setting a standard that ensures Wp doesn't become free fansite hosting.  It may be that I am overly interested in some sort of firm standards because of recent events, and I should be taking a longer view, but I'd like to see something that is the equivalent of "Fails WP:Music" so that we can start cleaning up a little before somebody decides to devote weeks to making individual articles on every song by Spandau Ballet and Kajagoogoo.  Jkelly 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jkelly.  I'd love for there to be firm standards on songs, but I have grave doubts there will ever be consensus for such a thing.  I guess one issue is that song articles should really only rarely be deleted -- normally, they'd at least redirect to the album or something.  Capitalistroadster makes some good points about songs from the pre-album area that are worth considering, though I'd be fine with just coming up with guidelines on modern songs.  When was the last time this has been issue for recordings from before 1965 or so?  (That's a serious question; I'm sure it's happened, but can't think of any examples) Tuf-Kat 04:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Capitalistroadster had to save "Drunken Sailor" from an AfD.  Jkelly 02:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My take on Notability and Music Guidelines songs

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

message: There is no consensus that the "vast" majority of songs don't need articles. There is a lot of support for singles having articles, and the ratio of singles to albums is quite high. Kappa 01:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, frankly, even though this wording of the guideline predates my involvement here, I agree that the "vast majority" of songs do not need articles.  For one thing, creating these articles impoverishes album articles (see Like a Virgin and Like a Virgin (song) now that I moved all of the info about the song into the article about the single).  In any case, there are ongoing discussions about this.  The conversation directly above from this section seems to have died down, but it is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pop_music_issues.  Jkelly 01:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *You don't have to take it all out. 2-3 sentences per single would make a nice narrative and help people decide if they want to read the specific article. Kappa 01:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough.  It would have made sense for me to leave a sentence or two in, you're quite right.  I'll go fix that.  I continue to assert that something like 90% of the songs ever recorded do not need their own articles, and that is a "vast majority".  I further assert that people are not currently showing good judgement about what songs to make articles for, and I would prefer to see even stronger discouragement in our guidelines about it. Jkelly 01:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the point. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? As a rule of thumb, I try not to write an article about a song that doesn't stand out as being among an act's most important works, or that didn't have some sort of an impact on mainstream pop culture beyond "it was a hit".--FuriousFreddy 02:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: My own guess is that well over 99.9% of songs recorded don't merit articles of their own. Certainly the percentage is a lot higher than 90%. Arguably, 90% of those that already get articles in en.wikipedia don't merit articles of their own. -- Hoary 03:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. We have so many articles on songs that read like marketing reports and fan pages. --FuriousFreddy 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "vast" majority is wrong

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

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

message: Just came in after seeing this page listed on RfC. I agree with the comments above that most songs can't support entire articles, and that separating out songs impoverishes album articles. I'd love to see very high standards for notability, higher even than what's already here.
That said, what about songs that are used as jingles for popular commercials? That seems like a potential avenue to notability. For example, the Chemical Brothers' "Galvanize" wasn't particularly notable until Budweiser used it in a commercial that is running extensively in the U.S. during the Olympics. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: Okay, so you've proposed a set of guidelines for determining which songs may have a Wikipedia antry and which may not. Great. Now there's one small problem, and that is the arbitrary nature of the guidelines.
In some respects, a little vagueness is good, as it keeps the guidelines flexible. On the other hands, it opens the door to ALOT of edit wars. Especially when you consider the sheer number of songs that could be debated. What constitutes a standard? What constitutes a medium sized country? Let's look at Canada, the second largest country in the world (by geographical area). It also has a relatively small population. Is it a small country (on the basis of it's population), or a large one (on the basis of it's size)? Also, consider that what you may consider to be an umimportant country may be very important to people that live there or are from there. 
Consider too, that the anthems of these countries may give inisht into the politics of these nations. Romania's anthem (Wake Up, Romanian) and Moldova's (Our Language is a Treasure) are both indicitve of how the Romanians and the Moldovans see themselves and the world around them. Neither country is especially large. Romania is roughly the size or Oregon in the US, and Moldova is tiny. But the accession of Romania to the EU makes it important with respect to the direction of EU politics in the future. Moldova's problems with Transdnistria are partly due to a conflict with Russia. This is indictive of Russia's politics. So, while neither country could be described as a major player politically, or large by population or size, both are important to understanding Russia and the EU, two entities that are very large and of concern to alot of people. Now, if you want to understand how Romania is going to fit within the EU framework, it's useful to look at how the Romanians view themselves and their neighbors, who are (with the exception of Serbia and Moldova) existing or propective EU members. A way to get an insight into that is to understand their anthem. Moldova's identity crisis (are they Romanians, a separate culture altogether, or something in-between?) is revealed partly by their anthem. And this identity crisis gives insight into their relations both with Romania and Russia.
Speaking of geopolitics, the popular music of a culture reveals alot about how ordinary citizens view the world. By analyzing their music, we gain as much insight as we would from their anthem, flag, national foods, holidays, and every other aspect of their culture. Musicology is integral to studying the cultures of the world.
To conclude: I find these guidelines arbitrary and limiting to Wikipedia as a whole, as they would exclude important facets of the societies of the world. I would argue against their implementation, and urge others to do likewise. Wandering Star 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand something -- according to these guidelines, all official anthems are notable, and Canada, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and Moldova would almost certainly qualify as "large" or "medium-sized".  I think the general interpretation of the same idea at WP:MUSIC is always taken to exclude only San Marino and the like. Tuf-Kat 18:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who decides?

message: I've added stubs for five songs:
*Baby Elephant Walk
*Hell No We Ain't All Right!
*No Sex (In the Champagne Room)
*Ring of Fire (song)
*The Man Comes Around
Please tell me, how do these fare under the criteria set forth in the proposal? As far as I know, only Ring of Fire (song) is an obvious keeper, but in my estimation, they are all significant, some purely for their quirkiness. bd2412 T 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs I've contributed - how do these fare? 

message: Okay, I admittedly work hard to keep as many music articles as possible, and while I think WP:MUSIC has its failings, I do support some sort of ground-level notability standard.  Seeing as there's a proposal for songs, I took a look and I'm a little bothered by a few things.
* 1: Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country
* 2: Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months (need not be consecutive)
The problem with these are twofold.  For one, many otherwise notable charts don't end at 20.  Many countdowns are top 25, you have things like the Billboard Top 100, etc.  Secondly, the "charted for six months" doesn't really reflect the realities of many singles-based music cultures, where songs don't chart for that long.  I'd much prefer to do away with #2 entirely, and expand #1 to include the appearance of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, as it is in WP:MUSIC.
* Is the signature song of a performer'
How about "is a signature song?  For instance, via this guideline, a song like R.E.M.'s "Country Feedback," a fan favorite but not a single, wouldn't make it as it doesn't appear to meet any of the guidelines set out here.  By allowing it to become a signature song, with citations, it allows some leeway in people being able to make articles for otherwise notable songs.
* Has been officially released in at least one remixed version and/or has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network and/or was the subject of a major publicity campaign
Have we forgotten the AfD controversy surrounding Ace of Base remixes already?  I'm inclusionist by nature, but this leaves the door open for any dance act to have every one of their songs have an article, which certainly isn't the intent.  By leaving this off, it would be easier to limit it by notability as opposed to remix.
I'd add the following:
* Is a theme song for an advertisement, television show, or movie.
This could be worked into #10, but I think it's worth expanding for this.
Now, I honestly don't see why we're quibbling over songs and why people want to delete them.  They certainly don't hurt anything by being there, nor do they reduce the quality of the encyclopedia by existing, but these are definite concerns if we're going to throw a guideline together. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this proposal 

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

message: Problems that don't require deletion - Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you'd think it'd be that simple, in practice, it unfortunately isn't...especially as more and more people start writing articles on musicians and all (and I mean all) of their singles, reguardless of notability. --FuriousFreddy 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Any subject can be boiled down to just the essentials.  Hell, we can just take all 43 Presidents and put them in a comprehensive "US Presidents" article if that's the route we want to take.  If there's information available, let's add it! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! If it's verifiable, let's have it! Merge is your friend for small articles. This rulecruft is getting out of hand. For great justice. 17:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this proposal is unnecessary

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

message: Enough already. There are plenty of guidelines, about guidelines about guidelines. There is virtually nothing that is verifiable that needs rules like this. Please stop. For great justice. 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please! No More RuleCruft!

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

message: I've notice a large number of articles for songs that seem to just be needless. For instance, the song Change Your Mind by The Killers had an article that only said it was the 8th track on their debut album, Hot Fuss. Clearly, I think any rational person could have determined that Change Your Mind was the 8th track off of the album "Hot Fuss" by looking at the page for Hot Fuss. There are also tons of articles involving singles where all they have is the chart placement, and which album it came off of.
We should make clear that if all you can say about a song is stuff that is already represented by various charts on the site (for instance, many artists have charts stating which singles a band had, where they charted, highest chart position, and the album it came from), then there is no need to have it. --THollan 19:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge them back into the album articles, and leave the redirect.  Jkelly 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I'm happy to find a proposal about this problem just as I was looking for a guideline. Generally, I believe splitting content across multiple pages makes it harder for the user to "collect" the information. I also believe splitting pages leads to less consistency, some pages will receive more attention than others and the topic as a whole ends up with gaps. 
I have the following text suggestion:
Guideline intro:
<BR>
:A song should not have its own article unless it meets the criterias listed below. Instead, songs may redirect to a relevant article, such as the album the song was originally released on, or the performer in question. Furthermore, songs should only have an individual article if there is enough encyclopedic information for it to be spun off from a very long album article (see Wikipedia:Summary style) and there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. Song pages should be named: song title (song)
:Additionally, a member of a band should not have his/her own article, unless the member is well-known by name outside the band's fan base, or the member has performed in another noteable band or has had an independent solo career, or is otherwise noteable per WP:MUSIC, and there is enough encyclopedic and verifiable material to warrant a detailed article.
Criterias:
<BR>
(I've included those listed in the current proposal and voiced my agreement/disagreement with each)
A song is notable if it meets one of the following criterias.
#Is an official anthem of a notable state, region, province or territory - Agree
#Is a folk song, hymn or Christmas carol with a documented history of more than fifty thirty years. - Agree
# Added: Has had an impact on society or culture outside of the artist's fan base, or has been adopted as a signature song of a noteable cultural, political or religious movement
#Is a musical standard (e.g. a pop or jazz standard) - Maybe (I have a difficult time thinking of a song as a "music standard", also see 1 below)
#Has won a major award - Disagree, doesn't mean much
A song may be notable if it meets two or more of the following criterias: 
#Is a song that helped defined a specific genre of music - Agree, I think "helped" should be removed, may overlap with 4 above
#Is the signature song of a particularly well-known performer - Agree, although reluctantly
#Is a historically notable song for being the first to do something interesting, stylistically or technologically - Agree
#Is a particularly well-known song from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television - Agree
#Has been placed on a "best of" or "most influential" list from a major music media source - Maybe (what's a "major music media source"?)
#Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country - Disagree, charts are 90% marketing, doesn't mean much anyway
#Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months (need not be consecutive) - Disagree, same as above
#Helped launch a notable record label - Probably disagree, "helped" isn't enough IMO, such a song should be included in an article about the record label.
#Has been officially released in at least one remixed version and/or has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network and/or was the subject of a major publicity campaign - Disagree, again, doesn't really mean much, besides there was a time when music didn't have videos/remixes.
#Has been downloaded a high number of times through digital download websites - Disagree. Currently, access is more important than demand as many songs are not available online legally. Also, many companies keep sale figures for entertainment products a secret.
Guideline end:
:The fact that a song is notable enough to deserve an article does not mean that each individual recording of a song deserves an article. Articles on different recordings should be merged into an article on the song unless that article becomes overly long or inordinately unbalanced.
END OF TEXT
A few songs I think are worthy their own article:
We Are the World, Kumbaya, We Shall Overcome, Smells Like Teen Spirit.
<BR>See also: Charlie Parker
<BR>-- Steve Hart 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to second the above amendments. They make much more sense than the current ones. --DaveG12345 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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