dr_whom

I have a pet peeve about what appears to be standard, or at least common, Wikipedia practice for writing articles about songs.

I've prepared an example of what, say, the article about Moby-Dick would look like if articles about novels were written the same way articles about songs often seem to be written.

Without comparing it to the real Wikipedia article about Moby-Dick (or any other novel), can you guess what my pet peeve about song articles is?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

tiamat360.livejournal.com

that the pages never say what the songs are actually about? or say anything about the content of the song itself?

From:

dr_whom

You better believe it. It'll tell you the name of the composer, who has performed it and when, a detailed synopsis of the music video(s)... but no mention whatsoever of any characteristics of, say, the music or lyrics of the song.

This was prompted by me looking up the song "Unwritten" on Wikipedia, and finding that the article contained so little information about the the song itself that, even though I know the song, I couldn't tell whether I was actually reading the right article. (Fortunately if you scroll down far enough it does quote the lyrics briefly... when describing the music video).

Other examples I found when clicking on miscellaneous other singles released in 2004: "Accidentally in Love"; "Believe"; "Celebrity"; "Drive"; "The End Has No End"; "First of the Gang to Die"; ...and I think that's plenty to demonstrate the pattern.

Certainly there are lots of song articles which do describe the actual song in some greater or lesser level of detail; but the fact that that seems to be a low priority for song articles is really annoying to me.

The guidelines for WikiProject Songs say: "Stick to factual material. Do not include... even statements about what the song is 'about', unless they can be provided in the form of quotes that can be cited from sources with some authoritative insight (such as the songwriter or a notable performer)." Obviously articles about, say, novels and plays aren't held to this standard.

From:

tiamat360.livejournal.com

So I'm a bit confused: are you interested in seeing the lyrics? the meaning or interpretation? the musical characteristics (e.g. time signature and key)?

Because I mostly think 1) there are lots of other (admittedly somewhat skeevy) sites that will give you the lyrics for a song, and 2) the meaning/interpretation seems to go against the guidelines you posted. Which honestly makes sense for most modern music: I don't think there's a lot of critical analysis of contemporary rock/pop music out there. If the artist had explained the song somewhere, or if actual analysis did exist, that would make sense to go on a wiki page.

Books and movies are more likely to have a clear, factual plot that can be laid out in a wiki - so even if there's no analysis available there's likely to be more content about the work itself. Those types of media are also more likely to have been subjected to critical analysis such that you can actually say "Ulysses may be about X" or whatever (and then cite that statement). It's a bit weird that there's not explicit rule that you need to cite interpretation you post about a book or movie, but perhaps that was expected to be a given - versus people just going "I think this song is about Y!" which seems more likely to happen.

More factual information like key, etc. would be nice to see.

From:

dr_whom

I think that (2) the guideline I quoted is basically wrong, or at least wrong in its application. There are plenty of songs, I feel, where you can state a general factual idea of what they're "about" without real likelihood of not having what Wikipedia calls a "neutral point of view", and I think that in those cases having this information in an article about a song is important enough that it shouldn't wait for an authoritative citation to be found before it can be included.

Here's a few examples of quotes from song articles that are technically in violation of this guideline:

The verses of the song are sung from the point of view of a bar piano player who focuses mainly on everyone else at the bar: an old man, John the bartender, the waitress, businessmen, and bar regulars like "real estate novelist" Paul and US Navy sailor, Davey. Most of these characters have unfulfilled dreams, and the pianist's job, it seems, is to help them "forget about life for a while."

A bag's worth of helium balloons are casually released by an anonymous civilian into the sky and are picked up by the Early Warning System of the West German government; mistaken for an attack by the Soviet Union, it results in panic and eventually nuclear war.

The song is a plea by the crab Sebastian imploring Ariel to remain sea-bound, and resist her desire to become a human in order to spend her life with Prince Eric, with whom she has fallen in love. Sebastian warns of the struggles of human life while at the same time expounding the benefits of a care-free life underwater.

I think all of these articles are better, not worse, for including this information rather than omitting it.

I mean, in general, I think it would be good if an article about a song contains enough information that someone who has heard a song and knows it well can more or less recognize, from reading the article, what song it's about.

Edited Date: 2013-10-12 09:37 pm (UTC)

From:

qnmark.livejournal.com

Too much focus on critical reception?

From:

q10.livejournal.com

i was epecting a joke page that contined the entire text of the novel, or at least a scene-by-scene plot summary. i feel like a lot of wikipedia articles i read for songs and short poems have roughly that issue.

From:

dr_whom

Ironically, it's the exact opposite!

From:

q10.livejournal.com

i was thinking of stuff like the painfully detiled summary in this older version of the article for 'friend of the devil':

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friend_of_the_Devil&direction=prev&oldid=149205192

From:

q10.livejournal.com

...or th way the 'star spangled banner' article includes the full lyrics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_spangled_banner

From:

dr_whom

But that's a good thing, isn't it? The lyrics are in the public domain, essential information about the song, and not so long as to make the article cumbersome.

From:

q10.livejournal.com

maybe?

isn't that what wikisource is for, though?

it just feels like a certain lack of editing, especially in this case where most of the official lyrics are never sung and are pretty much just trivia.

From:

dr_whom

I feel like most people don't know that Wikisource exists, and will go to the Wikipedia page looking for the full lyrics.

From:

q10.livejournal.com

but putting links to wikisource or wikiquote on the wikipedia page is standard practice for pulic domain works, no?

From:

q10.livejournal.com

or this older article for 'Margaritaville':

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaritaville&oldid=93827687

From:

q10.livejournal.com

sorry to post older versions. i'm trying to find the ones i remember that gave rise to this impression on my part.

it looks like there may have been a revision trend away from this in the past five years. maybe what you're seeing is an over-reaction to an earlier problem?