This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Icarus Falls article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See source posted at Talk:Rainberry (song) re: "Rainberry" as single released on November 29. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A vocal producer does not get credited in the infobox, per this parameter, which states: Enter the name of the person(s) credited with the record production. This is someone who oversees the recording process and is usually different from the artist or songwriter. For multiple entries, see Notes[2] for details. Also, they should be credited in alphabetical order, as most lists on Wikipedia are compiled as such — especially in infoboxes — and the album infobox should not be any exception to this. Groups list each member alphabetically, per surname or moniker... albums should not be an exception to this practice. livelikemusic talk! 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm opening this discussion for Livelikemusic, who has now removed the wording "bonus tracks" twice from the collapsed Japanese edition section in the track listing (and been reverted). This template was added by the user Andvip, and the whole of that user's edit was not reverted or taken issue with, only a selected part of it—I think if your selective removal of part of somebody's edit is taken issue with, it's on you in most cases to get consensus for the change. I believe we should be keeping "bonus tracks" appended to a heading unless we're listing the entirety of an edition—which we have not done; we have listed only the different tracks the Japanese edition adds. "Bonus tracks" are not only appended to the end of an album, which Livelikemusic has stated, so I believe it is appropriate denotation. What do others think: should "bonus tracks" be kept in the track listing heading? Note: This is not a formal consensus or a request for comment, so I am not wording as neutrally as I could. Ss 112 05:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So it's clear that the CD is being released across two discs, but online services (Spotify, iTunes/Apple, Google Play, etc.) do not split the album into two like Drake's Scorpion was. It seemed a little telling to me that there's an interlude to denote the split of the two 'halves' to the album, but this seems to me to betray the intention of the album to be across two discs, as generally, discs wouldn't intend with a track titled 'Interlude'. However, there are sources calling it a double-disc set. Cosmpolitan claims that the first half is Icarus and the second half is Falls (is this backed up by something Zayn said?). Same with ABC News Radio Online, who says it's "designed as a double album" here. Rap-Up also talks about the sides and calls it a "double-disc set" here. So as an informal consensus, what do we all think, should the track listing be split into two sides/discs? Ss 112 13:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Should these two tracks be listed as the first two singles? They're not technically non-album singles since they appear on the Japan edition of the album. They are listed as being from Icarus Falls on the main Zayn Malik discography page. I've seen other pages list bonus tracks as singles and some not. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Benjichilders ( talk) 15:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
For the time being, I changed those two singles to say "Non-album single" on the main discography article. Benjichilders ( talk) 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am starting to collect sources at Talk:Satisfaction (Zayn song). --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If sources are needed for the " Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)" interpolation:
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Icarus Falls article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See source posted at Talk:Rainberry (song) re: "Rainberry" as single released on November 29. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A vocal producer does not get credited in the infobox, per this parameter, which states: Enter the name of the person(s) credited with the record production. This is someone who oversees the recording process and is usually different from the artist or songwriter. For multiple entries, see Notes[2] for details. Also, they should be credited in alphabetical order, as most lists on Wikipedia are compiled as such — especially in infoboxes — and the album infobox should not be any exception to this. Groups list each member alphabetically, per surname or moniker... albums should not be an exception to this practice. livelikemusic talk! 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm opening this discussion for Livelikemusic, who has now removed the wording "bonus tracks" twice from the collapsed Japanese edition section in the track listing (and been reverted). This template was added by the user Andvip, and the whole of that user's edit was not reverted or taken issue with, only a selected part of it—I think if your selective removal of part of somebody's edit is taken issue with, it's on you in most cases to get consensus for the change. I believe we should be keeping "bonus tracks" appended to a heading unless we're listing the entirety of an edition—which we have not done; we have listed only the different tracks the Japanese edition adds. "Bonus tracks" are not only appended to the end of an album, which Livelikemusic has stated, so I believe it is appropriate denotation. What do others think: should "bonus tracks" be kept in the track listing heading? Note: This is not a formal consensus or a request for comment, so I am not wording as neutrally as I could. Ss 112 05:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So it's clear that the CD is being released across two discs, but online services (Spotify, iTunes/Apple, Google Play, etc.) do not split the album into two like Drake's Scorpion was. It seemed a little telling to me that there's an interlude to denote the split of the two 'halves' to the album, but this seems to me to betray the intention of the album to be across two discs, as generally, discs wouldn't intend with a track titled 'Interlude'. However, there are sources calling it a double-disc set. Cosmpolitan claims that the first half is Icarus and the second half is Falls (is this backed up by something Zayn said?). Same with ABC News Radio Online, who says it's "designed as a double album" here. Rap-Up also talks about the sides and calls it a "double-disc set" here. So as an informal consensus, what do we all think, should the track listing be split into two sides/discs? Ss 112 13:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Should these two tracks be listed as the first two singles? They're not technically non-album singles since they appear on the Japan edition of the album. They are listed as being from Icarus Falls on the main Zayn Malik discography page. I've seen other pages list bonus tracks as singles and some not. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Benjichilders ( talk) 15:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
For the time being, I changed those two singles to say "Non-album single" on the main discography article. Benjichilders ( talk) 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am starting to collect sources at Talk:Satisfaction (Zayn song). --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If sources are needed for the " Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)" interpolation: