Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Good article reassessment for Start All Over

Start All Over has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Radio and Records "Most added"

In Radio & Records issues, there is a list that is titled "Most added", can that list be used to indicate a single release, if so, can I use the date of the issue as the release date? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Newtatoryd222: No. "Most added" boxes cannot determine a song's release date. A song may take several weeks following its release to appear there. Use the "Going for Adds" boxes or search the prose to see if a writer mentions an add date. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:One Day Like This (song)#Requested move 22 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:One Day Like This (song)#Requested move 22 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 23:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Review requested: OK Blue Jays non-free historical image request

A COI edit request has been opened at Talk:OK Blue Jays#COI request: non-free image for 1986 gold record presentation asking uninvolved editors to assess whether a low-resolution, locally uploaded non-free image from a contemporaneous 1986 RPM item should be added to the article. The request concerns the gold-record presentation for "OK Blue Jays" and includes the archived source, suggested caption, placement, and non-free-use rationale. Input from editors familiar with article images, non-free content, Blue Jays history, or song articles would be welcome. ~2026-29868-50 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dominique#Requested move 15 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dominique#Requested move 15 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dry Riser

The article Dry Riser has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability do not believe this song is notable enough to justify its own article and it lacks reliable sources

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. LateFatherKarma (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of IPA transcriptions

Not long ago, ~2026-27859-67 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) started removing IPA transcriptions I had added to a number of non-Engish (specifically Italian) song titles, over the false claim that MOS:LEADPRON advises against having IPA transcriptions for certain song titles. Since, after I reverted the unconstructive and undiscussed deletions, other temporary IPs reverted them back basically starting an edit war, I chose to bring this to the Administrators' noticeboard—at first not considering it to be a specific content dispute in need to be solved but rather an act of disruptive behavior. I was encouraged to open a discussion on the content instead, something the other editor has refused to do despite being the one who tried to challenge the implicit consensus.

As a disclaimer, I’m aware IPA inclusion is sometimes a matter of controversy regarding the ability to find specific sources for the transcriptions themselves, instead of just transcribing what can ostensibly be heard and/or what is known or can be inferred from a language’s pronunciation rules—which is what I, admittedly, have done, even though I guess I could find sources for the IPA if required. Aside from this, however, I think it can only be of help to readers to have information on how to pronounce a song title in a language they’re not familiar with. I would like to hear the opinion of others as to this point specifically, which was brought into dispute by the IP editor but without any solid argument on why IPA should be outright removed after someone else provided it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as there are no specific issues (eg. incorrect/controversial transcriptions), IPA transcriptions are fine and useful for the readers, especially in the context of foreign language songs, where pronunciation is a very significant (if not a key) element. In the ANI thread the SPA IP said IPA is not useful but was unable to elaborate on why. I am not sure what the IP reason for removal is other than a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cavarrone 05:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of the existence of the term "overlinking": it is not good to insert wikilinks everywhere. The same goes for other terms, such as "overcategorization". I do not see why the insertion of too many IPA transcriptions should be different. In your opinion would it be okay if a user (me, for example) adds IPA transcriptions to all the articles in Wikipedia? I think after a while he would be stopped and his edits reverted. Am I wrong? In case I am not, why is a massive addition of IPA trascriptions welcome in a series of articles about, in this case, the songs of Sanremo? And I mean random recent songs, not the winners, the most famous or the Eurovision songs. Why is this addition at the sole discretion of one user? ~2026-31199-45 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding IPAs to all Wikipedia articles is indeed advised against at MOS:LEADPRON; adding IPAs for specific non-English words, phrases, names etc. is not. And if someone adds them you have no right to come and remove them without establishing a new consensus or proving that the transcriptions are wrong. A “massive” IPA addition, if at the right articles, is rather something I view positively because I tend to look for how I’m supposed to read languages I’m not familiar with. Unnecessary is not synonymous with damaging or disruptive. Why do you want useful pronunciations gone at all costs? As suggested by Cavarrone, you probably just dislike them. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Ans by the way, this is also not at my “sole discretion”. Anyone here is free to add or correct pronunciations if they are familiar with the transcription systems. Meanwhile, at your sole discretion, you removed the pronunciation from a literal Eurovision song, among others. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

IP, taking the Volevo essere un duro's article as an example, at least 18 users, including some veteran editors, edited the page after the IPA was added, and none of them removed it or raised any objections to its inclusion. And based on page views, tens of thousands of people, certainly including several hundreds of regular WP editors, visited the page since then, and none of them found the IPA problematic. The same for the other articles. You were the only one that at "your sole discretion" edit warred leads that included IPA transcriptions from a year or more to remove it, basing your actions on your taste and your questionable discretion regarding the song being not "famous" enough.

PS, your comparison with overlinking and overcategorization makes no sense. It is basically the opposite concept: in those cases the issue is a a potentially massive number of links or categories in an article, here we are talking about a SINGLE IPA transcription per article. Cavarrone 18:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

All I can say is I am stunned. So you are saying we should insert an IPA transcription in every article containing a foreign name? Considering just a few persons are familiar with IPA, this would be really overover-something, more than overlinking and overcategorizing... I am certain in no other language version of Wikipedia there are so many IPA transcription of foreign names. ~2026-31199-45 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I still haven't seen the point you've made. The two concepts you've compared don't bear a correlation to pronunciation guidance, friend. Overlinking and overcategorization are concepts because adding too many of these is unhelpful and creates a mess; is there something that is inherently unhelpful about this existing IPA? mftp dan ^oops 16:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, nobody said we should strive to fill Wikipedia with IPA transcriptions. What we are all trying to tell you is that there’s no reason to get rid of IPA transcriptions that someone else has added just because you personally dislike them, in light of the fact that they actually add useful information. They usually don’t disrupt or clutter the article, therefore not warranting arbitrary deletions without prior discussion on a case-by-case basis. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What I am saying is there is no need to insert IPA transcriptions everywhere, a choice should be made about the foreign names deserving to have it and the criterion should be the importance of the subject of the article. In our case, the songs who have only participated in Sanremo and not even all Italians know did not deserve an IPA transcription, this applies also for other fields. This is the overover-something I am talking about. Maybe some of those songs really deserved an IPA transcription, but all of them? Just because a user thought a certain page deserves an IPA transcription and inserts it will it be impossible to remove it by any other user after its insertion? So, at least, we should think well before inserting IPA transcriptions in articles and do it only if we are sure it is necessary for a specific article, not in all the articles with foreign names we come across... ~2026-31199-45 (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If this is the unanswered comment mentioned below, I’ll give my two cents: I already said we don’t have to add or keep IPA transcriptions everywhere, but where and whether it is worthy or excessive/damaging to do so should be discussed case by case, like for a number of other matters. You disagree with the inclusion of a certain section or piece of information? Take it directly to talk, or be bold but be ready to find opposition and discuss. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is. So, it might be a matter of discussion if a single IPA transcription should be included or not, all right. But I am saying another thing: if a user plans to mass-insert IPA transcriptions in a number of articles with something in common (Sanremo songs, Molisan communes, Juventus footballers, etc...) "this" should be discussed before, because after all the IPA transcriptions have been inserted a user like me who disagrees with this mass-insertion would be reverted if he tries to remove them, as it happened. Let's think well before inserting IPA transcriptions if this is really necessary or it is just because "I like it". ~2026-31199-45 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with "mass"-adding like that. If you object strongly to an instance, then you raise the objection here or on the talk page. I suspect you'll find that others don't feel as strongly. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I've always been a big IPA fan; if the pronunciation is uncontroversial, and the title is in a foreign language or otherwise likely to be unintuitive to an English speaker, I'd default to finding IPA helpful. If there are concerns about it clogging up the lead, there's always the option of using an {{efn}} to move it to a footnote. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I struggle to see how an IPA can be anything other than helpful in these circumstances. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, in fact, in most cases showing pronunciation is not really necessary.

• Wikipedia is written, not pronounced. When reading a written language with eyes, you don't really need to know how the text is pronounced.
• For terms not in English, most readers won't be able to pronounce them correctly anyway even when IPA is provided.
• Wikipedia is not a website for learning pronunciation.

Showing pronunciation should be done sparingly (such as in contexts where pronunciation does matter – e.g. when explaining a pun based on the pronunciation). ~2026-31918-03 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Solution: if you don’t care about pronunciation or don’t know how to read IPA – for which there are literal help pages anyway – you just skip to the portion of the article that interests you, just as for any other type of content in our articles. The IPA stays for those who may need it, which, for the last time, doesn’t mean we must go out of our way to spam transcriptions everywhere. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No. Adding IPA just adds clutter. And because of people like you obsessed with adding IPA, clutters are just being added to numerous pages. ~2026-32186-66 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s clutter only for people who don’t want it. It’s useful for everyone else. If you don’t want to read a part of the article, you skip it. And when the IPA is indeed too long or cluttering, we have the option of putting it in a note (through {{efn}} or other methods, as has been pointed out). If you don’t have any further arguments, you can’t simply go back to points that have already been discussed and debunked. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The user who is writing here is a different person, I added my last message yesterday a few rows above. ~2026-31199-45 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

This part (the part beginning with "Well, in fact") was indeed initiated by a different person (i.e. not ~2026-31199-45).

For Italian (mentioning this because you are from Italy and have been adding IPA for Italian),

• those who know Italian can pronounce a Italian term correctly even without IPA.
• those who don't know Italian do not necessarily need to know how a Italian term is pronounced (and won't be able to pronounce it correctly anyway)

Therefore, IPA is not really needed in most cases. ~2026-32379-65 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, already discussed. Not needed doesn’t not mean disruptive and to be deleted. The IPA helps are precisely to help those who can’t pronounce a language. You don’t know what someone who ended up on a certain article was looking for. Yours are not arguments in favor of deleting transcriptions, if anything the opposite. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

To elaborate on the second point:

• People won't be able to pronounce a non-English language correctly even with IPA notations and IPA help pages. To pronounce a certain language correctly, you must have prior direct exposure to the sounds of that language (i.e. you must have heard and must be familiar with the actual sounds). And IPA does not capture every aspect of the sounds of a language either. So in fact, IPA helps are not sufficient either.
• And again, such people do not necessarily need to know the pronunciation.

And to reiterate the first point, those who know a certain language can pronounce a term in that language correctly even without IPA, so IPA is not needed for those people.

So in most cases, IPA is not really needed. Adding IPA is just adding clutter in most cases. ~2026-32110-08 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

So you confirm there isn’t a need to remove it, you can just ignore it and you’ll be fine. Thanks and bye. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like you to read also my comment, not only his, and to tell me what you think about what I have said there. ~2026-31199-45 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: People won't be able to pronounce a non-English language correctly even with IPA notations and IPA help pages— all models are wrong, but some are useful. IPA isn't perfect, but it still provides a good enough approximation to be helpful. And while people do not necessarily need to know the pronunciation, they don't need to know almost anything about any topic; we provide information on what people might want to know, not just what is strictly necessary for a barebones understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is not paper, and we have the room to provide this kind of detail. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)