Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Songs
Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Songs essential facts below, , or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Songs discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Songs to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Songs
WikiProject Songs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Billboard chart statistics for Christmas songs

Holiday charts seem like a strange hybrid in that they run weekly but for only one month of the year, and many songs reappear there annually at the end of each year even though its not a year-end chart like the ones that Billboard magazine calculates for other genres of music. Since there can be an eleven-month hiatus between appearances on a chart for a specific recording, I'm wondering if the statistics for each year the song charts should be recognized. For example, the song page for "All I Want for Christmas Is You" by Mariah Carey has its peak position at No. 1 on Billboard's Holiday 100 chart, but there's no sense of when this reign began or whether or not it has ended when, in fact, the song has been in the top spot for 33 of the 38 weeks that the chart has been posted since it began in December 2011. I know that, for non-holiday hits, a list of the weekly positions is not allowed, but it seems like indicating the peak position for each Christmas season that the song appears on a specific chart would be reasonable, as has been done for "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree". I'm not finding any listings or discussion of the subject when I search for "Christmas" or "holiday" on pages such as Resource: Manual of Style/Record charts, Resource: Record charts, or their talk pages, but if I've missed some guidelines somewhere, I would appreciate being directed to them. Otherwise, it seems like a topic that should be addressed. If I were to guess which charts that include Christmas songs are OK to use based on previous Billboard chart discussions, the list would be:

  • Hot 100 - obviously OK
  • Holiday 100 and Holiday Albums - up for discussion, but I would guess they're OK since they seem like any other genre
  • Holiday Digital Song Sales, Holiday Streaming Songs, Holiday Airplay - definitely not acceptable

I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion so that we can maybe find some agreement on how to proceed with this information. Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Billboard is specific to USA. What about other English-speaking countires' pop charts? Also, some countries with heavy use of the English language, and therefore of EN.wikipedia, do not have dominant performance or playback of Christmas songs- e.g., India, Pakistan. Acwilson9 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
No, Billboard focuses on the United States but has charts for several other nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This listing of annual peak positions has already been done for some Christmas-themed songs - have a look at "Fairytale of New York", for example. My worry is that as these types of songs are now likely to chart every December for the foreseeable future, the articles are going to become unreadable because the length of the chart sections is going to become absurdly long. Richard3120 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fairytale of New York" is a good example of why I introduced the topic the way I did; many do keep coming back each year, and that song makes the top 20 in the UK and Ireland consistently. "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" is more interesting in the sense that its Hot 100 peak positions are currently on the upswing, so the reader can get a sense of its increasing popularity over the course of this decade. Just as the discography for an artist can get long enough to warrant a separate article, this particular phenomenon of recurring Christmas chart success seems reason enough to create a separate article if the section is getting too long. Danaphile (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how a separate article specifically about Christmas time charting would be encyclopedic, and focusing too much on just this aspect within the articles would be WP:UNDUE. You would need to find actual discussion on the topic of the song's recurring and/or increasing popularity, not just chart positions from trade magazines and the services that rank music popularity. For all we know, the upswing for "Rockin' Around the Christmas" has a lot more to do with radio programming and chart methodology changes over the past decade. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm in disagreement with pretty much everything in this last paragraph. Again, a discography for an artist often warrants a separate article, and yet those discography pages are not criticized for placing undue weight on the chart success of the artist and do not require finding an actual discussion on the topic of the artist's string of hit songs or albums like you're saying that this situation would require. Discographies on resource often are just the compiled chart positions from trade magazines and the services that rank music popularity because those statistics have been accepted as meeting the criteria for notability, but you're saying that the standard is higher for warranting a separate article in the case of Christmas songs that have charted, that a discussion of the topic--by which I'm guessing you mean is some additional source to be cited-- is necessary. I guess I need more than just your word on this.
You talk about the upswing in popularity for "Rockin'" as if radio programming doesn't factor into the chart statistics for any other genre of music and as if any chart methodology changes over the past decade that have somehow allowed that song back onto the charts were obviously a bad idea that needs correcting instead of a way of recognizing the popularity of older songs that people are shelling out 99 cents to buy. If Billboard is changing its chart methodology, I think its a safe bet that they're trying to improve the accuracy of what they're reporting, so I don't understand why you're dismissing these supposed changes as bad.
My original question was inspired by Carey's success on the Holiday 100, a chart that Billboard started in 2011 as a way of registering the popularity of Christmas songs, which have become the format of many radio stations each December. As with any chart Billboard creates, they're trying to reflect the current trends in music, but even after seven years in existence, the Holiday 100 hadn't received mention in the Billboard charts section of Resource: Record charts, even though it "ranks the top holiday hits of all eras using the same methodology as the Hot 100, blending streaming, airplay and sales data." When I started this thread I was trying to get a sense of whether or not the Holiday 100 was going to be acceptable to cite, but now that I see that their methodology is the same as that of the Hot 100, I have to argue that it is. Danaphile (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Remix single"

Is there thing called "remix single"? For example I would call "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" by Basshunter and "Racine carrée: Remixes" by Stromae a "remix singles" because these releases are short enough to not be albums (remix album) or extended plays (there is release called Remix EP: The Spot but I couldn't find the definition) and contain only remixes. Eurohunter (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe we just call it a remix. This is the case with many EDM songs I've made articles from, for example Superhuman (Slander song). The remixes by Gammer and Spag Heddy are not singles in their own right according to sources. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I don't believe this is any different to the days before the internet, when it was common for singles to be released in various physical formats, which often included one or two 12-inch vinyl singles or CD singles containing various remixes of the main song. In those days they were simply considered remixes of the original single, and are included with the article for the single in question. Unless the remix is released as a distinctly separate single in its own right at a later date (e.g. "Blue Monday 88"), the remixes should be included in the article for the original song... in any case, there's unlikely to be much information about them to create a separate article, just listings of their existence on iTunes and Amazon. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
These examples are simple because "remix singles" were released after the release of "main single". This is a remix of course (to be more detailed, this release contain a remix) but in cases included above there are releases like "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" and "Racine carrée: Remixes" and somehow we need to call this format. I need to know if term "Remix single" is correct for use in discography or album article etc. Eurohunter (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
A remix can be released as its own single, but I don't think it makes sense to call something a "remix single". I think we'd just call it a single. Don't see how it's that much different. dannymusiceditor oops 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I see difference between you release original song as a single or maxi single with remixes and single just with one remix so without original song (in case you released only single with remix not releasing single with original song previously). Eurohunter (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't. Guess that's just my opinion then. Mostly because I've seen examples of groups or artists releasing just the remixed version as a single while the original is an album track. dannymusiceditor oops 19:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the difference either. Like I said, artists used to release 12" vinyl and CD singles of remixes, and they didn't include the original version either. But they still counted as a format of the original single. Richard3120 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
For me It would be atleast weird to add "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" beetwen other singles. Eurohunter (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess you're asking what title you should give to that section on Basshunter discography#Singles - ID probably just say "Remixes". Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There is already Basshunter discography#Remixes and it's what "Basshunter Remix" mean. "Russia privjet (Hardlanger Remix)" is not remixed by Basshunter and is type of single. Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that it is a remix of a Basshunter song, and not a remix by Basshunter. But there's no proof the remix of "Russia privjet" was a single... it's just an official remix of a Basshunter song uploaded to iTunes. Maybe you can call the section "Remixes of other songs"?
It would be kinda missleading because Basshunter songs were remixed by verious artists. For me if something was released to iTunes it's a single. You can publish song but if you relasing it became a single. It's categorised also as single by iTunes, AllMusic etc. It's simplier. Eurohunter (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

+-------------------------+ Eurohunter, English isn't your primary language, is it? I'm not making fun of you or anything, but if I were able to understand the rest of your arguments better, maybe I might see the point you have. But for now, I think it's pretty clear that nobody else is sharing your mindset right now. dannymusiceditor oops 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Reading this over, I agree with Danny and Richard as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
A lot of singles have had remixes as either the A-side or a B-side, or 12-inch singles which had remixes in addition to the 'normal' mix on the 7-inch single. CD singles with multiple remixes of the same song were also common. If the release is a single, we should just call it a single in my view, it's the individual tracks that are remixes (or not). There may be cases where after a single is released, another single is released with remixes of the same track(s) as the first, i.e. as a different release so not considered a version of the same single (which were often released in multiple formats to get people to buy them more than once and hence get them into the charts), but it would still be just a single in my view, the 'remix' bit would be in the title of the single (or EP, depending on what it was released as). --Michig (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Michig. This is perfect. dannymusiceditor oops 16:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Studio album with original songs is a studio album but album with remixes is a remix album. Why single with remix and without original song isn't a remix single? This single contain only a remix. In addition there are many examples of 1-2 tracks singles (original song + remix) and later releases called "remixes" (include original song + 4-5 remixes) and these are singles. Eurohunter (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"...releases called "remixes" and these are singles"... So... call it a "single" then, as suggested above. The term "remix album" is an old one and well understood: however, "remix single" isn't, so it shouldn't be used. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that I clearly said here that singles releases called remixes include original song and remixes. In case above there is only remix without original song. It's not standard single. Eurohunter (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
What we're trying to tell you is: yes, it is a standard single, and you are mistaken. It does not matter if the remix by itself is the only thing on the single, the type of release remains the same. dannymusiceditor oops 20:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why are you asking if you're so sure of the answer and unwilling to listen to anyone else? Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I presume he is trying to advocate for a new infobox parameter? dannymusiceditor oops 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter:, singles do not always include the original version of the song... there have been many occasions when the single release has only been a remix of the original song. Perhaps the most famous is "Ignition (Remix)" by R. Kelly which was a number-one single around the world, and yet the "original" version doesn't even exist in a complete form. So yes, the Hardlanger Remix is just a single, like any other. Richard3120 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I added it between other singles. Eurohunter (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Little Bit Country/Little Bit Rock and Roll

Given the prominence of the Donnie & Marie classic Little Bit Country/Little Bit Rock and Roll in the current Chevy Silverado ad campaign, I was wondering if anyone could source a credible article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

New work

In which section of song article information about new work or should be included? I mean if artist started workong on other single or album. Eurohunter (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There aren't many places within a song article where you could add that information - usually either in a "Background" or "Composition" section. But is it relevant to mention new work within the article? Richard3120 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
How it can be not relevant? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Because it's a different song, it has nothing to do with the song in the article. Can you give the example that you are talking about? Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Video Megamix

How should I call it? Is "Basshunter remix video" okey? Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is going to be like your discussion above about remix singles... it should go by its official name. But if it isn't an official release , it shouldn't be listed. Richard3120 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It's official. I added it to video megamixes. Eurohunter (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of 45cat at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion of the reliability of 45cat at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § -- Newslinger talk 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

2 Hearts

Could some knowledgeable users please offer guidance at Talk:2 Hearts (2007 song)? The article is currently listed at WP:RM and that's how I first came by it, but it quickly became apparent that there is some kind of content dispute over the inclusion of material relating to the song's original version, and that in turn has bearing on the correct disambiguation of the article title. I am not familiar with the song nor the band who originally recorded it and to be honest song articles are not really my forte, perhaps someone here can lend their expertise? Thanks. PC78 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


I think there can be recognised two types or remixes. A remix released on the single like "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" (Basshunter Remix) released on "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" (part of single) and remix released as single like "Move Your Body (Alan Walker Remix)" by Alan Walker (standalone release). In first case. Should these releases be included in the discography? If not is list of songs a good place? Eurohunter (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

I'd like to revisit a discussion re: categorizing all songs by an artist as any specific genre. I say we should not group all songs by an artist by genre, especially when song articles require sourcing specifically describing the song's genre(s). To group all songs by an artist as a specific genre is inaccurate and unfair.

For example, just today, User:MagicatthemovieS removed Category:Synthpop songs from "Sexxx Dreams" because Category:Lady Gaga songs is a subcategory of Category:American synthpop songs. MagicatthemovieS did nothing wrong here in terms of how categories are intended to be used, but are we seriously suggesting all songs by Lady Gaga are synthpop? Many, many Lady Gaga songs would never be considered synthpop, or even pop in general. How is this helpful or accurate?

To recap, I started this discussion back in April 2017. The discussion generated some helpful feedback, and User:koavf strongly opposed changes to the current format, but overall I believe editors were supportive of not grouping all songs by an artist by genre. I try not to put words in folks' mouths, but here is a summary:

  • Editors not concerned about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:koavf
  • Editors expressing concern about categorizing all songs by an artist by genre: User:Walter Görlitz, User:Michig, User:Ojorojo, User:Explicit
  • I'm not entirely sure where User:Synthwave.94 falls on the issue; they commented on a specific change to the Led Zeppelin songs category, but (IMO) did not weigh in on the larger discussion (correct me if I'm wrong)

I've linked to editors' names so they will be notified of this discussion. Please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions.

I revisited this discussion in May 2018, which also generated some good discussion.

Again, please let me know if I've misrepresented your opinions, or feel free to clarify your thoughts here. I also submitted an RfC, hoping to get additional feedback from editors who may not watchlist WikiProject Songs. Only User:Doniago weighed in, and said they were not in favor of "pigeonholing artists into genres, with the possible exception of situations in which all of their notable works really do belong to a single genre".

Do any other editors care to weigh in here? There seem to be a few editors who are opposed to changing the current category structure, but more editors in favor of ending the practice of labeling all songs by an artist as a specific genre. I will ask again, Should we continue categorizing all songs by an artist by genre?, and are there ways to get this discussion seen by a larger audience than just WikiProject Songs? Clearly, my attempt at RfC was not successful last time.

I'm hoping we can hear from other people and not just rehash the same arguments by the same people, as the previous discussions already show their opinions. I also welcome previous participants to share if their thoughts have changed at all. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"are we seriously suggesting all songs by Lady Gaga are synthpop?" No. Just like how Category:Metallica albums is under Category:Thrash metal albums but they do have one symphonic metal album, it's okay to characterize a category as being thrash even if a single article is symphonic. The precision of categories really needs to apply to articles more than categories. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 22:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, you have appropriately summarised my views as stated previously. There's too much categorising for the sake of categorising here, a desire to create a neat ontology where none exists. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: But we are essentially calling all Lady Gaga songs synthpop by removing Category:Synthpop songs and keeping Category:Lady Gaga songs. (For the record, the edit made to "Sexxx Dreams" was reverted, and Category:Synthpop songs was replaced with Category:American synthpop songs, but I think this still makes a good example.) You've made your strong opposition known. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I think anyone knows the difference. Is there a policy or guideline that supports your claim? -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 22:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What claim, exactly? What am I proving? If we can only add genres to song article infoboxes with appropriate sourcing to confirm, why are we not treating categories similarly? We should only be including articles in song genres when the article's prose specifically mentions genres, not just throwing them into an artist category and hoping the genre applies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
"What claim, exactly?" About all articles in a child category inheriting some property from a parent. "If we can only add genres to song article infoboxes with appropriate sourcing to confirm, why are we not treating categories similarly?" Because articles are different than categories, as I just said above. This is exactly my point: if Metallica releases one smooth jazz single and the rest of their songs are thrash metal, it's okay to have the category be included in thrash metal and save that one smooth jazz song for being categorized differently. Don't upmerge dozens of songs out of that category and leave the main artist category without a genre because of one weird outlier. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 01:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
That's where we disagree. In my opinion, the outliers are problematic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: WP:SUBCAT supports this. explicit 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
My two cents: I think far too much time is wasted arguing about this, considering I feel like the vast majority of resource readers don't even know categories exist, let alone use them. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Really? So that's a reason to keep a terribly inaccurate category structure? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to politely clarify for you that he doesn't care. Nor do I. dannymusiceditor oops 22:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Noted. Two "don't care" votes. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My stance remains the same as before; don't replace genre categories with musician categories, especially for those who work in multiple genres. It's oversimplified and often misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ditto on SNUGGUMS' stance for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @SNUGGUMS and Walter Görlitz: Thanks for confirming. If either of you can think of ways to get more editor feedback, or make a more formal proposal, please share. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've posted a message at village pump seeking additional editor input. I've tried to be neutral in my overview of this discussion so far, and I'm hoping some editors outside WP:Songs will contribute. I'm pleased to see so many comments here so quickly, but so far we've heard many of the same voices. Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Since no one else has commented in more than a week, I've posted a similar note at the administrators' noticeboard. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • As an example from the album's side, I'll offer up this: I would not categorize Category:Steve Martin albums as both "Comedy albums" and "Bluegrass albums" as it contains 8 albums and perhaps 1 is both bluegrass and comedic (categorize the individual albums as appropriate); on the other hand, I would not remove the "Pop rock albums" categorization from Category:Billy Joel albums just because 1 of his albums is a classical album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why you'd want readers to assume all Billy Joel albums are pop rock, but regardless, this sort of subjectivity demonstrates my point. We as editors should not be deciding genres; genre categories should be added based on secondary coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • You're missing my point. Let's be more general and call all Billy Joel albums "rock albums" except for the one classical album. Should the rock albums category thus be removed from the Billy Joel albums category because one is classical. If your answer is yes, then we should scrub all genre categorization because I don't want to go through such categories scrolling through hundreds or even thousands of articles within the categories without some sort of beneficial diffusion. If it's going to be one way or the other, I'd rather have artist diffusion over no diffusion simply because a few albums by the artist are "out of scope". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be categorized album categories by the existing genre categories for the same reason we don't categorize categories like Category:Lady Gaga under Category:1986 births, Category:Synthpop singers, and so on. If Category:Lady Gaga albums can be categorized under Category:Electropop albums, which is then removed from The Fame, it is interesting to see no push to categorize the Gaga albums category under Category:Interscope Records albums and remove it all of Gaga's album pages. Alternatively, we can simply allow both Category:Lady Gaga albums and The Fame to be categorized under Category:Electropop albums. We allow this for countries (France and Category:France are both under Category:Western European countries). explicit 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § You Know I Got Soul reliability and use?. -- Newslinger talk 11:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Genius ( on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Genius ( on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § -- Newslinger talk 11:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes