Albums
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

	Songs
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

I really think it's time we added a line to WP:NTOUR explicitly stating that set lists sourced from Setlist.fm or artist's fan pages are not acceptable, as they fail WP:USERG. 90% of tour articles on Wikipedia are little more than a list of tour dates anyway, but so many of them add set lists from Setlist.fm to try and add more sources to them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather ridiculous guideline to me—a good song article is going to have big sections about production, release, reception, and themes. Those are going to be very different in cover songs that have taken on a life of their own. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Marvin Gaye's I Heard It Through The Grapevine (as well as Creedence Clearwater Revival's), The Beatles' Twist and Shout, The Animals' The House of the Rising Sun, Simon & Garfunkel's Scarborough Fair, Gillian Welch and Allison Krauss's I'll Fly Away, and They Might Be Giants' Istanbul (Not Constantinople), but there are many more. If a Wikipedia article on a song solely focuses on the song's lyrics and tune, that's a pretty terrible article—but that's the only thing a notable cover has in common with its original. If a cover has independent notability, it should have a separate article. Pigeonholing a cover into the original's article fundamentally misrepresents what a song's Wikipedia article should focus on, and leaves out a lot of notable information that could very well have its own article. Am I missing something? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cover can have its own article if it would make the original article too long to include both versions. I know what you're saying about differences in styles – the three major versions of "Tainted Love" have nothing in common with each other musically – but it does make it much harder to search for a particular version if you are going to have a separate article for each one. Also, where would you include the cover versions that are notable enough for a mention because they charted somewhere, but not notable enough for their own article, like the versions of "Red Red Wine" that aren't by Neil Diamond or UB40... in the Neil Diamond version's article, or the UB40 one? Richard3120 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a song has one cover, it can be hatnoted on the original—if it has multiple, we can have a set index or disambiguation article hatnoted to the original. Not-quite-notable covers would still go on the original, I presume—and originals would probably still have some mentions of notable covers with "main article" hatnotes. I don't think the originals should change much theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only "cover" version that has an independent article is The Star-Spangled Banner (The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston recording)). No other version has managed to be as extensive as that one. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the guidance above and in the guideline is the best answer. But regarding the OP, nothing uses categorical language equivalent to "Never" and regarding wp:notability there is also the wp:GNG route in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: per WP:NSONG: Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. Covers that pass GNG don't get their own articles. It's a much higher, and apparently unwritten, bar. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Might you be interpreting that from a more nuanced situation? For example, where it was weak or borderline on having GNG coverage (which I imagine would be the case with most covers) combined with some influence from the discussed guidance in the SNG? North8000 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re nothing uses categorical language equivalent to "Never", WP:COVERSONG says When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article) (emphasis mine). Granted, that only has the status of wikiproject guidance, rather than a policy or guideline, but in practice it seems to be treated as an actual rule rather than mere local consensus. (I have to admit, I myself thought that it was a guideline until I double-checked just now. I wonder whether this principle has ever been tested at AfD with an article on a cover which clearly passes GNG? If not, maybe we just need someone to overcome the inertia by starting such an article and seeing if it survives.) Colin M (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Here are a few examples of AfDs where editors uncritically accept WP:COVERSONG as a consensus rule (though this was not necessarily determinative of the outcome in all cases - i.e. in some cases the subject also failed GNG in addition to being a cover):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Night (Mark Peters song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Grace (acoustic version) (Taylor Swift song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleigh Ride (TLC song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Net Die Een Vir My

Though none of these really represent the sort of strong test case I was looking for. Colin M (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm okay with Taylor Swift not getting two articles for re-recording the same song—that's largely going to be the same article unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The others, though... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm definitely not saying these were all incorrect outcomes, I'm just trying to demonstrate that editors tend to treat WP:COVERSONG as a guideline in practice rather than a wikiproject essay. Colin M (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We Are the World 25 for Haiti, Somos El Mundo 25 Por Haiti, and We Are the World 25 for Haiti (YouTube edition) are all covers of the original We Are the World, and they have their own articles, and both Band Aid 20 and Band Aid 30 aren't far off from being an article for their cover of Do They Know It's Christmas?, so their is precedence for covers having their own article. I personally don't think they should be their own articles but there is precedence. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question we should be asking is, what is the subject of the article? The statement "covers should not have their own articles" implies that the song is the subject of the article, and all versions of that song should be covered in one article on one topic. However, there is no reason in principle that recordings, rather than songs, can't be the subject of their own articles. Recordings are ontologically distinct from songs and are ontologically distinct from each other, and if they reach a certain threshold of journalistic/critical/academic analysis, then it only makes sense to treat them as separate topics for an article. I think the number of cases where that is necessary is probably small, but WP:IAR cases are going to come up here where it is sensible to have more than one article for "the same song". Chubbles (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in utter agreement with theleekycauldron. In fact, I wrote a grumbling mini-essay on exactly this, which I'll quote almost in full: I just don't see any rational reason for [WP:SONGCOVER's prohibition against standalone articles for covers]. Whitney Houston's cover of I Will Always Love You obviously passes GNG by miles. There's plenty to say about that cover specifically (its chart performance, its awards and critical reception, its music video, etc.), but for some reason it needs to live as an article-within-an-article at the song article. How is this better for readers? A somewhat analogous situation is video game remakes/remasters, which we do allow to occupy separate articles (e.g. Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster). Colin M (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, I think exactly the opposite of this. By having all versions in one article it allows the reader to trace the development and growth in popularity of "I Will Always Love You" over the years, that Whitney's version was inspired by Linda Ronstadt's version, which was inspired by Dolly's original... I actually appreciate this, to be able to follow the history of a song in one article and not break it up. It also means the reader doesn't have to search for "I Will Always Love You (Dolly Parton song)", "I Will Always Love You (Whitney Houston version)", "I Will Always Love You (Kristen Chenoweth version)", etc. But I do agree with a lot of what Chubbles says above, and I think that there will be cases where a separate article may be justified. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I don't necessarily think that a cover having its own article should negate its level of coverage in the original article, because you're right that it's valuable information. But I also think that there's more we can say in a few notable articles rather than one, especially for readers looking to learn more specifically about one version. And I think the original wouldn't have any parentheses in the title—Dolly Parton's version would be "I Will Always Love You" with a hatnote to Whitney Houston's version, and possibly others. also, kristen chenoweth‽ i learned something new today theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: you and Colin have perfectly reasonable arguments, and I guess I just see it differently... it's one of those topics that people are going to have different opinions about. I'd note that the hatnote wouldn't work in every instance – "Unchained Melody" has been no. 1 for four different artists in the UK alone, and there are plenty of other notable versions, so that could get messy. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the navigation issue, using the Unchained Melody example, if we had standalone articles for each of those four renditions, then they could be listed at Unchained Melody (disambiguation), with the main article having a hatnote link to the dab page. However, readers would not necessarily need to navigate through the dab page to get to their intended destination. The introduction of the current article currently mentions some notable covers. If we had articles for those covers, we could link to them in the text of the intro. e.g. It has since become a standard and one of the most recorded songs of the 20th century, after being popularized by a July 1965 recording by the Righteous Brothers. But also the current section structure of the main article could be kept roughly the same, except that the sections about covers that had separate articles could be condensed down to a summary and a hatnote link to the cover article, per summary style. So the reader would have a third way of navigating to their intended article - by hopping to the corresponding section via the table of contents and then clicking through the {{main}} section hatnote link. Colin M (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate how multiple versions of a song (often multiple different single releases by different artists) are bundled into one horrible mess of an article. It's symptomatic of the failure of the WP community to understand the difference between a song, a recording of a song, and a single. --Michig (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I thought this might provide some useful context/background. Feel free to add to this any others you think are relevant.)

• 2009-2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions discussions about this issue, attempting to work toward a guideline on where information about covers should live. Participants were fairly evenly split. Does not appear to have reached consensus. Seems to suggest that the unwritten status quo at the time was to favour merging rather than splitting.
• October 2011 cover guidance added to WikiProject Songs, basically mirroring the current advice of WP:COVERSONG. Brief preceding discussion here, though it focused more on the question of criteria for a cover to be mentioned in the main song article, rather than the question of whether covers qualify for separate articles.
• Feb 2013: an MfD about the split vs. merge problem. Ultimately procedurally closed as taking place in the wrong venue, but interesting in that it echoes a lot of the points raised here.
• Feb-Mar 2013: this discussion established consensus to add the "notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article" verbiage to WP:NSONG.

Colin M (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that still a thing? Sorry for my ignorance. I'm still playing old tapes of WKRP in Cincinnati. —valereee (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly is, subject to WP:V, of course. Chubbles (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there notability guidelines that specifically cover total streams and active monthly listeners on streaming platforms? These are touched on briefly in WP:CHART, but it feels like something that would warrant a specific mention in this article. Cormac.nataro (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be one, or something similar. The industry has pivoted to focusing on streaming in the last couple years, with much less focus on traditional music journalism, which in the past was a qualifier for notability. I've been struggling recently trying to create articles for artists who have tens of millions of streams, and a sizeable buzz on social media, while it's a lot easier to make articles for artists who barely have 10,000 monthly listeners and can't tour, because they've targeted journalists as a marketing strategy. The former is certainly notable, the latter less so, but the guidelines currently don't reflect this. quin 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent for this? I've seen numerous IPs fighting and changing one to the other and back when describing an artist. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it as well. I would usually write British, but it depends on what RSes state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British people or Britons, also known colloquially as Brits, are the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Overseas Territories, and the Crown dependencies. So an English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, Gibraltarian etc would be British. For example, a Welsh person could also be described British but not be as English. In American terms, it's a bit Californians -v- Texans - they are still Americans. This English Brit is not going to war of these definitions. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: back to my original question, what does that mean for referring to artist? Should we say English Singer Adele or British Singer Adele for example? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming her place of birth as Walthamstow, London, it may be considered correct to call her English or British, English being a drill down from British, either would be correct, but not Welsh, Irish or Scottish. But I am sure somebody would come along with another opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say neither, but for a different reason: singer should not be capitalized. Once that has been addressed, either would be acceptable. I would also use what most reliable sources refer to her as. For instance, AllMusic] writes English, but they are only a single source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English and British are both correct - English is more specific, but nobody has an English passport. I often see editors edit-warring over these but wouldn't waste my time getting too involved. --Michig (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Michig, it's not something I'm going to waste my time arguing over. It seems to be more common that editors want to specify the country when the musical act is not English – see for example the description of the band in the first line of Deacon Blue, Stereophonics and Stiff Little Fingers. Having grown up in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s, I am well aware that calling Stiff Little Fingers "Northern Irish" is by far the least contentious description, and I'm happy to leave it at that. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So first the song is notable, but then it suddenly might not be notable? This point contradicts itself. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sentiment is meant to be more like "it may be notable, but it's not confirmation that it's notable." Basically like, "it's a good sign that it's notable". It's basically so people dont go making one sentence article about every song that peaks at 99 on a Country chart or something. Third party sourcing and content to be written is still necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing a contradiction here. The text that introduces the list of which this is one of the bullets says: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. This is similar to other SNGs. e.g. WP:NSPORT begins: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. Colin M (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS has similar ones too. They're not guarantees, but they're good indicators. And failing all of them is generally a pretty bad sign for notability as well. And some content areas just don't have them at all. We tried to draft up a WP:NVIDEOGAMES or something years back, and the community couldn't really come up with any industry-specific guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction here. Charting alone is not enough. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert, don't conflate "is" with "may be". They're not synonymous as your comment suggests. Such a common misconception is like saying "could be" (i.e. a possibility) has the same guarantee as "will be" (a definite). Contrary to what certain people think, entering a chart does not by itself inherently mean something warrants a page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this discussion with Erpert before about Top of the World (Kimbra song), a song I don't think is the slightest bit notable (the NZ Hot Singles chart is not the main NZ chart, or even the NZ "bubbling under" chart, it's the bubbling under chart reserved exclusively for NZ artists, and it still only managed a single week on that chart). So I do think that Sergecross73's "one sentence article about every song that peaks at 99 on a Country chart or something" is valid here. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see people act like "may be notable" means "is notable" a lot, not just with music. It gets really tiring having to repeatedly explain the difference. IMO the various guidelines should have the word changed or clarified so there isn't the ambiguity or disagreements about it anymore. I think way to many people misunderstand the language to just chalk it up to a lack of understanding by any individual person though. The wording just isn't as clear as it could and should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggested wording? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"can be notable if", "Might be notable if"? I'm sure there's other other ways to phrase it if either of those don't work. I'm not really hung up on the exact wording though. I'd be just as happy with there being a disclaimer that "may" is not a guarantee of notability and WP:GNG or whatever special notability guideline still needs to be applied even when one of the criteria are met. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we add a sentence along the lines of "However, meeting any of the criteria below should not be taken to mean that the song is definitely notable; an article should still have enough sources to be able to create a reasonable amount of prose, and not just contain tables of chart positions or certifications". Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support something along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would as well. I cannot comment on other project though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]