- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was wrong venue, MFD isn't for changing/deleting/removing parts of a WikiProject's guidance (or whatever you want to call it). BencherliteTalk 11:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SONGCOVER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia has four million articles, but not one of them as far as I am aware is a standalone article on a cover song. Zero. None. And here's why:
Different musical groups often record a cover version of a previously recorded song. Under WikiProject Songs, the song is treated as a topic and the cover song is treated as a subtopic of the song topic. For example, Black Magic Woman (Santana cover song) is a widely popular 1970 version of Peter Green's 1968 song Black Magic Woman and WikiProject Songs treats Peter Green's 1968 song Black Magic Woman as "the song" and treats Black Magic Woman (Santana cover song) as a version/rendition subtopic of "the song." Under "Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover-versions/multiple-renditions", WikiProject Songs has been enforcing a rule that all cover song subjects must be treated only in the song topic article and "never in a separate article."[1] This goes against how Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines treat topics and goes against how Wikipedia generally treats subtopics. For example, Wikipedia:Summary style supports fuller treatment of any major subtopic in a separate article of its own. Yet, WikiProject Song prohibits covering a cover song in a separate article of its own through that WikiProject's cover-versions/multiple-renditions subsection. The reliable source do not write about cover songs in the artificial way WikiProject Song envisions. Rather, the reliable source write about cover songs as topics/subjects in their own right with little, if any, connection to the original song itself. The WikiProject's enforcement of its absolute ban on giving fuller treatment of any major cover song subject in a separate article of its own has created a serious disincentive to Wikipedian writers to write about cover songs. To see this, you need only look at Wikipedia's coverage of Top 10 Cover Songs More Famous than the Original:
The amount of reliable source material available on each of the above ten cover songs topics likely is enough to bring each cover song to GA or FA status. Yet, because WikiProject Songs uses its project status to force each of these major cover song subjects to be only written about in a song topic article, Wikipedian writers have largely chosen not to write about these and other cover songs. Under WikiProject Songs enforcement, the only way any of the above top ten cover songs can receive a higher rating on the quality class is if the written song topic article itself is improve. For example, the only way Hurt (Johnny Cash cover song) can receive the Wikipedia higher level writer interest that comes with a GA on the quality class is if the poorly written Hurt (Nine Inch Nails song) is improved from its "C" rating. Since it is unlikely that an editor is interested in all versions of Hurt and since the reliable sources only loosely relate the cover songs to one another, the Hurt (Nine Inch Nails song) article will continue to develop unevenly and the cover song subjects will not receive the richer, fuller contextual treatment that comes from being in a standalone article. Wikipedian writers should be free to write standalone articles on notable cover song topics without being met with a merge demand that they instead add their writing only to the underlying song topic article per the WikiProject Song's WP:SONGCOVER. I became aware of this no-standalone-song-cover-article issue through a request to merge an article I recently wrote, Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) (you may have heard it from the film American Graffiti). From that merge discussion on the talk pages of the two merge articles, apparently cover songs are not "songs," there is only one song, all the rest are renditions/versions, etc., and all the information about "the song" is to be in one place in Wikipedia (all of which apparently is supported by precedent). In other words, "An article about a song is about THAT song (And certainly not about a recording of that song!)," and "there is no benefit to separating except under WP:SIZE" (which I don't believe has ever happened for a song article). As for the merge of Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) into Heart and Soul (1938 song), apparently I would need to remove some of the context from the Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) information because that reliably sourced context would not make sense in the Heart and Soul (1938 song) article.
The responses I received in discussing the merge and those posted on WikiProject Song's talk page made me realize that I definitely am not the first one to be discouraged from exercising my editorial judgment in how I choose to writing about a cover song and that this was a more significant problem than my one article. There is no reasonable basis to claim that a cover recording of a song cannot be a subject treated in a standalone article any more that saying a remake of a film or other work of art cannot be a subject treated in a standalone article. When a WikiProject's efforts retard article content development and exceeds guidelines and policies, that effort needs to be terminate and the basis for it deleted. As such, "Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover-versions/multiple-renditions" should be deleted and/or enforcement of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover-versions/multiple-renditions" be terminated. An iVote to delete in this discussion will result in "Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover-versions/multiple-renditions" being deleted and/or enforcement of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover-versions/multiple-renditions" being terminated. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProject Songs cover-versions and multiple-renditions efforts are not Wikipedia policy and this is not a request to alter policy or guideline. MfD is called "miscellany" for a reason. MfD is a catchall that handles a variety of deletion discussion not covered else where. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, remakes of a films and other derivative works of art are subjects that Wikipedia policy and guidelines allow to be treated in standalone articles. Look at List of film remakes A-M or List of film remakes N-Z. The list of film remakes in standalone articles is so big that it had to be divided into two lists. Where is the companion List of cover songs showing the cover song articles in one column and the original version of the song in the other? The standalone status of those film remakes permitted under Wikipedia policy and guidelines allows important context to be added to those film remake articles and encourages Wikipedia writers interested in those remake subjects to work to improve the article to increase its quality status. WikiProject Songs' efforts to go against established Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which has resulted in Wikipedia writers not expanding on the encyclopedia's treatment of song covers. MfD is the place to terminate those efforts and delete the WikiProject basis for those WikiProject efforts. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomininator has interchanged the word "song" with "recording" without understanding fully the difference. Taking, for example, Hound Dog (song), no matter who performs the song, it is still the same song, written by Leiber and Stoller, the words and melody do not change, only the arrangement and interpretation of the song. A song article (as already explained to the nominator) is about the song and NOT a specific performance - it is the song that is notable, even though specific performance(s) may make it notable. Films are not comparable in any way, shape or form. Abbreviated on the grounds this is wrong venue. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NALBUM - part of WP:NM - allows articles on individual recordings and would seem to trump WP:SONGCOVER. --Surturz (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent. Parent notability has to be established independently. Notability attaches to what is being written about by the reliable source. When writing about a cover song, the reliable sources do not write about "the song", they write about the cover song in the context of the person/group performing the song. When writing about Elvis Presley cover song Hound Dog, the reliable sources do not write about "the song", they write about the Hound Dog cover song in the context of Elvis Presley performing the song and they use the term "song". The claims that cover songs are not songs and that specific performances cannot be treated in a standalone article is bizarre. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SONGCOVER should redirect to WP:NM; Article content policy should be deleted from WikiProject Songs; Sufficiently notable cover versions of songs should have separate articles (changed vote) Thinking about what I think should happen, I think an WP:IAR/WP:BURO discussion here is warranted. I am persuaded by the nominator's arguments, and furthermore I believe content policy should not appear inside wikiproject pages. --Surturz (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I don't think a policy or guideline needs to be changed, but we need to to something to start having notable cover songs appear as standalone articles. The encyclopedia is missing a significant amount of context and other cover song information that comes from a standalone article reaching B, GA,or FA status. I see this MfD is a first step. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the right venue, even if the sentiment (that the weird rules of the WikiProject in question are beginning to negatively impact on our encyclopedia) is a valid one. Probably better to start a community-wide RfC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that we need a community-wide RfC to discuss whether the world-wide popular Hound Dog (Elvis Presley cover song) is permitted to be treated in a standalone article? People likely would think it a joke. Yet, there are no standalone cover song articles in Wikipedia, so this situation is far from a joke, particularly given how we are the largest and most expansive information compendium the world has ever seen. MfD is a right place to get consensus from editors not connected to WikiProject Song regarding whether to delete, redirect, or otherwise written aspects of that WikiProject. MfD has had numerous discussions regarding WikiProjects. MfD is a correct venue for this request. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do think that we need a community-wide RfC on it. In seven years of dealing with WikiProjects I've come to the opinion that frequently their members are completely unaware that they aren't at complete liberty to make up rules for the articles they cover, and frequently the wider community has no idea that the WikiProjects are doing such a thing. Have an RfC, clear the matter up once and for all. Trying to change WikiProject "policy" on an MfD is folly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A community-wide RfC on the broader issue is a find idea. As I noted above, I see this MfD is a first step. However, MfD seems a good place to delete "Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Cover-versions/multiple-renditions" and an RfC might not result in deleting that WikiProject subsection. We could have a situation where a community-wide RfC confirms what Wikipedia:Notability (music) already says and those who seek to remove all cover song standalone articles from the encyclopedia continue to use WikiProject Songs Cover-versions/multiple-renditions subsection as a basis to merge/redirect cover song articles. Would you consider agreeing to delete WikiProject Songs#Cover-versions/multiple-renditions? I know that alone won't result in turning around whatever it is that got us into this situation, but I think it a good first step and that this deletion venue is appropriate for the deletion request. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that this the wrong venue. The only reason I was able to find this dicussion is Uzma Gamal adding a section to WP:DRV without an article being created and then deleted in the first place. The first step in the process should have been to comment on the talk page of the WikiProject, which it looks like Uzma Gamal did. Also Uzma Gamal did not notify anyone of this MfD, at least a mention on the talk page of WikiProject would be helpful. I did find this previous RfC on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions that was started in July 2009 and had discussion added to it up until December 2011. Aspects (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Aspects. Consensus seems to be for merged versions. I think, though, the WP:SONGCOVER section should be copied, if not moved, from WT:SONGS to WP:NM. If it is being enforced as a content guideline, then it should appear in a content guideline page. I also wonder if an article like Happy Birthday, Mr. President counts as a cover version, or an WP:EVENT? --Surturz (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Uzma Gamal's whole argument is based on a misconception, Anything, having attained notability, must have a separate article. This is patently untrue, but is subject to more general WP policies like WP:SIZE etc. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong venue - this is not a discussion for MFD, since it's not about deleting a page, but about changing a WikiProject's policy. I agree with the suggestion for a community-wide RFC made by Chris Cunningham above. Personally, for what it's worth, I don't have strong feelings either way; I think it's arguable that at least a few cover versions are notable enough to have their own articles, but as Richhoncho says above, that doesn't mean we need to have separate articles on them. Robofish (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not MFD material. MFD on a paragraph that the proposer dislikes doesn't make sense: we don't selectively delete individual paragraphs from guidelines at MFD. If it was applicable, I would say that the base argument is ludicrous. If an article about the Elvis Presley cover of "Hound Dog" could be made at FA level, what about the material about the other versions of "Hound Dog" prevents that? Individual articles about different aspects of the same thing is something to avoid, not to encourage.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree this is the wrong venue, and so commentary about the policy probably belongs elsewhere, though my inclination is to agree with the nominator to an extent – the absolute ban makes little sense given that there are some song cover versions for which a lengthy article could be created with reliable sources. Because those are rare, the section should probably set out general guidance for when a stand-alone article is likely warranted and when not. However, the underlying premise here, which I came across at another posting by the nominator on the issue—that this policy section has kept people entirely from writing stand-alone articles, and that there are none at all—is profoundly factually in error. Rather than none, it looks like we may have a few thousand stand-alone articles on covers songs or hundreds at the least. I found the following stand-alone articles on covers in the first 30 results of this Google search, and that search, which won't find all by any means, returns about 30,400 results all told:
- --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be wrong, but none of the songs in that list seem to have multiple articles. The example I mentioned before is Happy Birthday to You and Monroe's rendition Happy Birthday, Mr. President --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.