![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Apologies if this was talked about above, but I just recently saw someone add Category: Barbra Streisand songs to an article about a song, and I notice that the category is a list of probably everything she's ever recorded. This seems to me to not only be overly excessive, but also would get utterly rediculous if every artist -- even just more major ones -- were listed. I can just imagines songs such as Summertime and Yesterday which have recordings numbering in the 3000s. Both of them alreayd have SOME artist categories listed, but if it were to continue, well I can't imagine ANYONE would agree that any article needs 100 categories. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Related to prior discussion but like from the other side, 'featured artist' page.
SEE
Tik Tok (song) page > Kesha singles chronology > "Right Round" (2009)
But this song was not released by Kesha as a single.
This appears to be misleading and I OPPOSE it.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
So then why should "Telephone" be listed in "Beyonce singles chronology"? An editor 'claiming' that it is a 'single' by the 'Featured artist'? huh? There is usually recognition in navboxes that there is a difference as it is not shown purely as a single because of an added 'group' section "Featured singles". It is appropriate there as it is shown correctly as being 'featured'. So the infobox appearances also need to be consistent with this 'recognized' difference and not report it as a 'single'. I also do not support the creation of Category: singles featuring Beyonce or a "Beyoncé featured singles chronology" Bold for emphasis only.— Iknow23 ( talk) 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that no one calls these "duets". I must presume that the term "featured" is being used for some reason.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is a "duet", then why don't both artists release it. Contracts could be made up that way.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between 'songs' and 'singles'.
I do not support "Beyonce songs chronology" because that would mean listing songs by Album 1, Track 1, Track 2... then Album 2, Track 1, Track 2...and other appearances placed in-between the Albums as appropriate to when they occurred. However a
Category:Foo songs is fine because it is an alpha list of songs in which they appear. I still say that any other artists should be PROPERLY credited [either as featuring with Foo, or it is Foo featuring with other artists] there as well.
Regarding "
Smooth", our answer is contained in the cover art (if OFFICIAL). It shows Rob Thomas as the featured artist. We may not all agree with that designation, but should stick with it as it is the 'credit' "agreed upon by all artists and their own record labels".—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that Universal Music Group has been moving their videos to VEVO and that prior 'regular' YouTube links are now dead. So if you have their YouTube music videos linked in infoboxes or used in references, you will most likely need to update them. According to the VEVO wiki, additonal record labels are expected to join VEVO. If they do, we can probably expect that their prior 'regular' YouTube links will also go dead.— Iknow23 ( talk) 06:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Breakeven is about a guy who likes a girl but the girl doesnt like him back and they broke up . But he still has a crush on her and he wishes she would come back to him. And the girl doesnt mind and shes totally fine but the boys upset I have the same situation cept im a girl and hes a guy and we were never a couple. Anyone else agree about the songs plot? If no, why not? ANyone else have adivce for me? 72.192.180.223 ( talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
For songs like Lady Gaga's Telephone (song) featuring Beyonce, the featured artist's singles chronology has been added to the infobox underneath the main artist's. I disagree with this practice because it implies that the single is also a single of the featured artist, which it is not in most cases. Beyonce and her record label did not release Telephone as a single from her album (or alone) and do promo for it, only Gaga did. So why have people been adding "Beyonce singles chronology" and the same for other artists to a song page that is not even a single for the artist being featured? I don't oppose some sort of chronology for the featured artist, but "singles" is misleading. The infobox guidelines are extremely vague so it would be great if we could decide what to do about featured artists and then add it. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 15:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Grk1011/Stephen for starting this discussion as I was about to do the same. I agree with you, "the chronology is for released 'singles' by the artist. Just because she sings in it does not make it her single. It's not 'Beyonce's new single' its 'Lady Gaga's new single with Beyonce in it'." Yes, there is a distinction between a 'featured artist' and THE 'releasing artist'. It is properly noted as being one of Beyoncé's "Featured singles" in her navbox.
My position is that "Beyoncé singles chronology" AND "Beyoncé singles" navbox should NOT appear on other artist's pages. Same to apply to other 'featured' artists for their chronology and navbox NOT to appear on the 'releasing' artist's pages.
What I have been doing, is including the 'featured' info along with the 'releasing' artist's infobox, with a link to the featured artist page. This plus the fact that the featured artist will undoubtedly be mentioned (and linked) within the article text should be sufficient credit for the featured artist. If anyone seeks further information on the featured artist, just click on one the links and go to their page. See example:
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
— Iknow23 ( talk) 04:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Revised my example. Beyoncé's last name is not necessary to appear, but still linked to her page. The reason that I suggest: "Telephone" (featuring Beyoncé) is that's the way I generally see such songs described and discussed. It's kind of like the industry term of 'standard usage' to describe this type of song. Thus, as it is generally understood, I thought we should adopt the same.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the points mentioned above are all valid and i think the consensus seems to be clear. "Telephone" is a Lady Gaga single which feature Beyonce. It is ONLY classified as a Lady Gaga single because it ONLY appears on HER album. Therefore there is no justification to put beyonce in the infobox. Had it featured on Beyonce's album then it would have been appropriate. Putting beyonce's catagory at the bottom of the page would be acceptable. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC))
Ok, let's try to put this in a more clear fashion.
'featured artist' in this example = Beyoncé
'releasing artist' in this example = Lady Gaga
LIST YOUR Support or Oppose of the following by indicating the number: (include explanation)
For clarity all items are listed in the 'positive', so no one has to say "No" to a 'negative' statement. This does not mean that I support them in the 'positive' position as you see below.
— Iknow23 ( talk) 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC) added parameter 5 — Iknow23 ( talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
revised position 4. — Iknow23 ( talk) 04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be fairly standard practice at WP to list the single chronology for both artists, see Dancing in the Street, Under Pressure, Video Phone (song), Beautiful Liar, Jimmy Crack Corn (song), I'm Gonna Make You Love Me, 4 Minutes (Madonna song), Especially for You and Where the Wild Roses Grow for the examples I found in a couple of minutes. More can be found at Category:Vocal duets. Those that are for these proposals will need to consider how it affects other songs and exactly what guidelines need to be created. It would be difficult to use which album the song came from for guidance, as some appear on both artist's albums and some songs are not featured on any album by either artist, some are released by artists on the same label, so record label doesn't sort it. I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find an example where the single was released on a third label! That, as far as I can see, only leaves one way to decide whether both artists are listed in the infobox singles chronology - set a percentage contribution necessary and get the tape measure out and measure the contribution of both artists. Besides failing WP:OR that wouldn't work! Remember any classification at WP is a blunt instrument at best and the creation of Category: singles featuring Beyonce where she is not the lead artist is not going to serve any real purpose.
In reality I think a great number of editors who have never seen this page and will not know this discussion is happening have already decided the issue for us.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Supporting number 1 and 2 just clutters the infobox. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Songs featuring other artists are not singles of the featured artist (unless perhaps both artists release them specifically as singles). No where does it say "Beyonce's new single Telephone" in sources and it would be original research to say it is which we have done here. It already says in the infobox "featuring Beyonce" so there is no reason to jam a Beyonce singles chronology onto the bottom just because it is a single with Beyonce in it. The chronology is for singles "by" the artist, not every song categorized as a single that the artist sings in. It is grossly misleading. The fact that many other song pages include the featured artist's chronology is not a good reason to oppose this change in practice because just because it occurs does not mean it is right. If the number of changes is the problem, make a list and I will personally correct them all. When we have massive category renamings we don't say oh well there's too many pages, so why would we in this case when the change is for a good reason?
As for the navboxes and categories, "Beyonce Knowles songs" is appropriate because it is a song with Beyonce (not a single, make the distinction). A navbox provides navigation between articles related to its subject. Beyonce being in the song makes it related to her, not to mention there is a section for songs of other artists that she is featured in. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
new parameter 5 Added above.
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
How's that? I don't really see the big deal about putting the featuring artist in the infobox: such as Telephone with Beyonce and Video Phone with Lady Gaga. Seeing as it's a single, the chronologies should mention whoever is featured in the single. Even though Video Phone is not Lady Gaga's 'song', she's featured in the 'single'. Like I said in the Video Phone discussion page, it's a single chronology, not a song chronology. They deserve credit too, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Adabow (
talk)
03:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
SEE "Video Phone [EXAMPLE 1]"
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
Since this is from the
"Video Phone" article and BOTH Beyoncé and Lady Gaga are discussed in the article text, seeing "Video Phone" THERE on THAT page in BOTH artist's chronology, it is understood [expained in the article text] that it has NOT been released separately by both artists, but both have contributed to it.
But then consider "Telephone" that appears in BOTH artists chronology WITHOUT being discussed in the article.
It looks like EACH artist has INDEPENDENTLY of each other coincidentally released a song with the same title. Two separate recordings of totally different songs, or the SAME song recorded separately by each singer.
My proposal to disambiguate this and to show proper credit to each artist is shown in "Video Phone [EXAMPLE 2]"
Others may think that this looks 'messy' but I contend that it is unavoidable and necessary to show proper credit to both artists.
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
— Iknow23 ( talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
Such as:
Telephone by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé
As pointed out by Wolfer68, "The 'credit' is agreed upon by all artists and their own record labels."
Since this has been 'predetermined' by them, perhaps we should actually title the articles this way?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This way the proper 'credits' will display in the listing in the Cats, and wherever else the songs are linked.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of articles about songs recorded by more than one artist. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, it would be absolutely ridiculous to include every artist who recorded some songs as a category. Would you REALLY want 200 categories on Yesterday? The only time I could see it is if an artist is particularly associated with the song, like in the case of say Unchained Melody, where The Righteous Brothers recorded the definitive version, even though they didn't contibute to its creation. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In a case where there is a featured artist in a cover song, I would recommend something like: Telephone (cover by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé) <I know this is not a cover, just for example purposes.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Example revised— Iknow23 ( talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For singles that are released after an album, should the released date in the infobox indicate when the album was released or should it indicate when the single was released? For example, Runaway Train (song) was apparently released in an album in 1992, then as a single in 1993. Which should be used in the infobox? — RockMFR 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a good model for how to handle information about what songs are sampled in a given song or album? Should all the info be included, or is it indiscriminate? Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh my! I'll start with the easy one:
As to what 'these leave out', my position is ALWAYS disambiguate 'what specific recording of the song is sampled' as to what remix or cover version it is for example. I guess it is also possible to sample a cover version's sample of another song?! Of course the material should be verifiably referenced.
As to "how long the sample itself is", "if it's a short clip repeated", or consists of some repeating elements and others just used once, "whether the sample is altered in some way" - I am a bit hesitant here that it could be indiscriminate. A link could be given if someone wants this additional info like is on the
Feed the Animals#External links
Andy Baio's analysis regarding songs sampled in the album.
I would support a brief mention of "whether the sample is altered in some way" as in it was 'chopped and screwed' for example but very specific recording engineer or
DJ terminology is to be avoided. We do not have to have a manual as to how to re-create it. Like in: at song time index 0:26 - 0:32 insert sample time index 1:03 - 1:09 at time scale 76%, at song time index 1:18 - 1:31 insert sample time index 0:26 - 0:39 at time scale 115%, at song time index 2:02 - 2:08 insert sample 1 again, etc.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
On the article, " Tik Tok (song)", a user has cut the content out of the chart performance section and pasted it into another section which consists of the chart table and procession/succession box. I have since reverted it back to what it was because I want the issue resolved here so no edit war of such occurs. The reason given for this was per Wikipedia:SONGS#Chart performance.2C charts and succession. If that is the case, then why do other well written song articles that have passed WP:GA use the format where the chart performance has its own section? Examples include " Just Dance", " Poker Face (Lady Gaga song)" and " LoveGame." If this guideline had to be followed, I am sure the reviewer would of picked up on it. Must we follow exactly what it states? It does not say that it is compulsory to format it that way. • вяαdcяo chat 04:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I have a request for anyone who can read music and has the music notes software. I'm trying to do some work on the
composition section in "
City of Blinding Lights". What I have so far from the music notes software (
here) is "City of Blinding Lights" is played in a key of A-major at a speed of 139 BPM in common time. The vocals range from F♯4 to A7." What I think I need now is a chord sequence, the kind of tempo it is played at, and more specific vocal ranges throughout the song. The article recently passed GA and I'd really like to get it up to FA; but with what I have so far I think that just isn't possible. Any help that can be provided at all with this would be very much appreciated.
MelicansMatkin (
talk,
contributions)
22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have created articles for list of top 10 singles in the UK, from 2002 to 2010. 2003 and 2009 are the two years which are complete (but they need checking to see that I haven't missed any songs out). Can I get some collaboration going on the other existing articles. Chart data can be found here but make sure that you subtract 6 days off their listed dates to give the date that the chart was revealed. Please let me know here if you can help. Thanks. 03 md 00:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I nominated the article Pitchfork 500 : Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present to be moved to the simpler name The Pitchfork 500. Further explanation can be found at the talk page. Please offer your input if you are interested. (Also, I just added the WikiProject Songs banner to that article's talk page, since it wasn't under the scope of any WikiProject. This WikiProject seems the most relevant.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have put Giovinezza on hold at WP:GAR for a few (relatively) minor issues (see Talk:Giovinezza/GA1) however the main (and pretty much sole significant) contributor has informed me he doesn't have the time to fix it. If there are any interested parties, you've got a week to pop over. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Would it make sense to make every subcategory of Songs by year a subcategory of the corresponding Compositions by year category? Currently, 1999 songs is not a subcategory of 1999 compositions, but rather both are subcategories of 1999 works – even though a song is clearly a composition as well. Also, I think instrumental compositions should not be included in the "songs by year" categories, but rather directly under "compositions by year", as well as Instrumentals. What do you think? Jafeluv ( talk) 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a policy on double A-side singles about whether the songs both have individual articles? As I understand it, Wikipedia looks at music compositions as songs first and foremost and therefore charting songs should be given individual articles. For example, " Say Goodbye" and " Love Ain't Gonna Wait For You" by S Club both redirect to one article about the single, whereas " You and I" and " Don't Let Me Down" by Will Young are separate articles. Any ideas? 03 md 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see a discussion on the WikiProject Albums discussion page about the notion of when a single is and is not from an album. Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD are ostensibly in an "umbrella" role to all music-related projects. Contributions are invited to a new discussion on this topic. Thanks. PL290 ( talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I would just like to inform you that " City of Blinding Lights" is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should " aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification on the relevant WikiProject's talk page would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similarly-worded notification has also been placed at Talk:U2. Cheers, MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 01:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not involved with this or any other music-related WikiProject, but I thought there may be editors interested in participating in the Move Request discussion at Talk:Long Gone (1948 song). Another editor is suggesting that all articles with (song) in the title that are about instrumental compositions should be renamed, beginning with the four articles named in this Move Request. Propaniac ( talk) 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_My_Ex%27s_Live_in_Texas
Please someone fix the error in the title of the song on the above page. I fixed the errors I could but the title is not available for edit, I think.
THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.221.66 ( talk) 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The page is about the song from an EP/maxi-single that was released in Korea early last year.
However, the infobox is about the EP. It had the single infobox until recently, when an editor decided to switch it to the album...even though the chronology now lists the followup song instead of the followup EP.
Considering that the page has information on both, which infobox should be used? And should the album page be split off??? (The reason it hasn't is because almost all the information would be duplicated with a separate page; any standalone info about the album would amount to a stub article. But if there are convincing arguments, I can do the work to split it off.)
Any input would help. Thanks in advance. SKS ( talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
could someone give me additional opinions about the reliability of the following sources:
It's about the second/third single from
Rated R (Rihanna album), "Rude Boy". I initially left a message at
WP:RS/N, but since those are all very specialized music-related websites, I hope that someone here can give me an assessment.
Thank you,
Amalthea
16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm doing a GA review and would be grateful for input from knowledgeable editors here: Wikipedia:RSN#Musicnotes.com regarding use of musicnotes.com sheet music links as reliable sources in song articles.
It's about two things:
Please weigh in at RSN. Thanks for your time. -- JN 466 22:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
at Money (That's What I Want) changed the records podsiton on the "charts" to "chart." Is "charts" not always plural? I think so, but wish to get a 2nd, 3rd and even 4th opinon before reverting anythig. Your turn. einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So I think that the way it was edited is okay. However I don't know what the source for this info is - I'll look and see if I can find something about the R&B charts. thanks, Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
a category called Category: Hal Blaine Strikes Again and have been posting it on articles already written about the records that Blaine played on. Almost 100 so far. The title of the category refers to a rubber stamp that Blaine used to stamp his charts with. I realize that neither the category nor its name are mainstream, but, does everything need to be? Anyway, the category is up for deletion and I'm hoping that editors who at least are knowledgeable and care about this sort of thing will look and think and and vote [1] there. Vote any way that you wish, but do check it out. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 03:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
When you click the (see Release information) you get a table something like the one below.
Region | Date | Type | Other Details |
---|---|---|---|
United States | January 20, 2009 [1] | Airplay | |
January 30, 2009 [2] | Physical | CD single, 12" Club Promo | |
January 30, 2009 [3] | Digital single | ||
Brazil | February 11, 2009 [4] | Digital single | |
Australia | February 19, 2010 [5] | Physical | CD single, 12" |
February 15, 2009 [6] | Digital single | Radio edit | |
Germany | April 3, 2009 [7] | Digital single | |
United Kingdom | January 22, 2009 [8] | Digital single | Live version |
January 25, 2009 [9] | Wikipedia remix | ||
April 1, 2009 [10] | Radio edit featuring Chipmunk. | ||
February 1, 2010 [11] | Physical | CD single, 7", 12", CD Maxi |
Advantages of this is likely to considerably reduce war editing as release date spells out more about what sort of release date it is. Table is flexible, so we can add relevent release information as we see fit. SunCreator ( talk) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I find release history tables cumbersome and hard to verify with older releases. That's why I always opt for prose instead, and I personally recommend the same to others. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I would rather keep the release date as agreed in the previous conversation's consensus "the earliest date you can purchase the single, with exception to songs exclusively released in the US where it has been made explicitly clear that the song is a single but it was only released to radio." Lil-unique1 ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
infobox single}}
and {{
infobox song}}
to work out. Yet, I think this is misleading us. Each article is about a song - we often has this in the titles
Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) for example, yet we try and establish if it's a single in order to conclude things like it's single release date, yet in fact the article is a song and a song can be released whether it's a single or not.
SunCreator (
talk)
00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)the song is stated on wikipedia to have been written in 1982. Then how come BJ Thomas released it as a single in 1972 as shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.J._Thomas ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.240.103 ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please assess a rating for this article or direct me to someone who can. Thank you. Sarujo ( talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has just has its GA status reassessed as part of the WP:SWEEPS; the article was found to have substantial problems, especially in the matter of referencing and Lead layout. Given the substantial nature of these deficiencies, the article has been failed immediately as it is felt that the necessary improvements required to meet the GA criteria will not be made within a 7-day grace period. However, as there has been some (minor) activity on this article recently, and because it is listed under 3 WikiProjects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed and resolved within 7 days, I will undertake an immediate GA review to re-list the article. The reassessment review can be found here. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this matter. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This issue keeps popping up. so need to bring it here.
Radio is not a release date, see example
Video Phone (song) U.S. radio on September 22, 2009 but "Released November 17, 2009" in infobox & "Release history" section. Also in infobox = "Format CD single, digital download". Sending to Radio is PROMOTION prior to release as a Single and does not constitute 'creating' it as a Single. I'm sure that there are MANY MANY MANY songs (Promotional Singles) sent to Radio that are ignored. Due to the failure of this 'promotion' the Record labels probably decide to cancel their plans for the Release of such songs as a Single (SALES). If they are never sold as a SINGLE, I don't call them a single. Radio PROMOTION dates can be mentioned in the article Lead as background info leading up to the Release as a Single or the failure of such release.
It is Not a single while only being sold [commercially released] as an ALBUM track. When sold as a single it will have a different release date than the album.
Per the Lead Performer,
Selena Gomez at
http://www.facebook.com/Selena?v=feed&story_fbid=137239266694 "album comes out next Tuesday September 29th...the record release party that night as well!!!!!!!!" The record release party is to celebrate the SALES release of the Album. Please note that the release party was not held on Friday, September 25, upon the completion of the PROMOTIONAL play at
Radio Disney.
Do I make any sense here? What does everyone think?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Referring to whether airplay release dates should be included in release history, on GA's such as LoveGame and Already Gone airplay dates are included in release history. Also Radio Disney is promotion for Disney, and is not compared to standard radio stations. As for the Blah Blah Blah discussion, "The add date (set by the artist and their people) is a "push" for radio stations to add the song to their playlist for rotation" -- can be compared to the date set by the artist and their people to purchase by digital download or a CD single. With that said, both sales and airplay contribute to position on charts, so should be represented equally. One more thing, for the Eh, Eh, article referred to in the Blah Blah discussion, I agree that the case would be different when the info box becomes lengthy. And yes, songs do not have to be singles to chart these days, but they can also chart soley on airplay also, (ex. Try Again). I think there are very few cases in which radio singles are not release as physical/digital singles. Try Again is one of the only that fall into that category, and even it was eventually released physically. Also it remains to be released to radio only, then that's just presumably a promo single. Candyo32 ( talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If there is something more specific, I am happy to comment again. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the release date is when you can buy/download a single. Allowing the inclusion of airplay as a release date will confused the matter because like the comment above radio stations can choose to solicit a song and play it to radio when it leaks before it is even announced as a single. However i think there needs to be guidance on the subject. For example " Up Out My Face (Remix)" by Mariah Carey was sent to radio stations on Jan 26, 2010 and will be released mainstream radio on Feb 16. Even though it has been called a single and her website is even promoting this I changed the release date to Feb 3, 2010 which is when you can buy the music video. Also in the US artists tend to release radio only singles, therefore under those circumstances the radio airplay date = the release date. I am under the opinion that if a digital download/CD single date is available it should prevail as the release date over the radio airplay release. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I personally disagree, especially since songs are released as promo radio-only singles as Lil-unique1 noted. I see the point that DJs can begin playing songs as early or late as they want to, but that does not disguise the fact that record labels actually do send out singles to radio on certain dates. If a song is released to radio before it's released to retail and the radio release date is known, the first date (which would be the radio date) should be used. – Chase ( talk) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(←) It seems that we've gone off topic. This isn't about what release causes a song to chart, it's about the earliest release, which we are to go with per Template:Infobox single. In many cases that is the radio release. Many times radio stations give songs unofficial spins (recent examples would be " Telephone" by Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and " Blah Blah Blah" by Kesha and 3OH!3). However, often times record labels send out singles to radio for airplay. That is technically considered a release, in my opinion. – Chase ( talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. User:Liquidluck and I have always left single release dates as the release of the digital single or the CD single because airplay does not make a single. Airplay doesn't even make a promo singles for various reasons. Let's take songs that receive airplay on Radio Disney to promote upcoming albums, more specifically the album Hannah Montana 3: eleven of fourteen songs received airplay on Radio Disney and having almost the entire album as singles seems ridiculous. In fact, right now, the article has songs that were not released as singles under the single list but once I get to that article I will correct it. -- 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems we require to break this discussion in sections somehow. I note in the above discussion there is even differing definition of what constitutes a 'Single' . So sorting this out could take a while. SunCreator ( talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I must protest the spitting of the two areas. The infobox must MATCH with the earliest date shown in the 'Release history' section for consistency within the article. Indeed, many many infoboxes have links to '(see Release history)'.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
OK use the space below to vote (and only vote) for the consensus about INFOBOX dates.
Based upon discussion above and realizing, as in most things in life, there are variances and exceptions:
Take "I Kardia Sou Petra" by Elena Paparizou. It was not released as a dig download or physical other than purchase from the album. Sony Music says To νέο single από το άλμπουμ λέγεται Η Καρδιά Σου Πέτρα. (the new single of the album is "I Kardia Sou Petra"). Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I PROPOSE that for these SPECIAL market (country or region) established practice instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that are NOT AVAILABLE INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ALBUM, that we split the Release shown in the infobox. First row to display 'Released DATE' Second row '(Domestic,
Radio single)' Third row 'DATE', Fourth row '(International [or Regional, whichever seems more appropriate],
Digital download,
CD'. The Release history section in these SPECIAL market instances would show the Radio Airplay info.
PLEASE, Agree or Disagree.
Agree - of course.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote for #1 obviously. Jayy008 ( talk) 02:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me basically what I proposed, with the SPECIAL area variations, except you only want ONE release date showing in the infobox. The above ""this was never released as CD or Download, the page should be deleted" is not accurate. If it is notable, it could be converted to an infobox song and remain. As I stated way above, I do NOT grant United States similar exception. If the Record company can't be bothered to even set a Digital download SEPARATE from the Album track, it remains an Album track, not a Single.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote #1
Jayy008 (
talk)
02:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I support #2. Also, if you look at wiki for
Radio single, it redirects to 'Promotional recording' "distributed free in order to promote a commercial recording...usually sent out to music radio and television stations, music journalists and reviewers in advance of the official release date" < advance of Official release date means prior to as in the ADVANCED copies of albums. We don't consider the ADVANCED date there to be 'released' as we wait and use the 'first sales' date instead.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me to grant a special exception for the United States as it was intended only for SPECIAL market (country or region) established practice instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that are NOT AVAILABLE INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ALBUM. If the US gets the exception too, what's the point. Why not give it to everybody, in which case it is not an exception but the rule?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This is getting way too confusing, but I support #1 Candyo32 ( talk) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a third option. Jayy008 ( talk) 03:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I fully support the use of a (See Release) button/link. Personally I don't understand why we even have a release date in the info box. Why not have it all in a Release table? That way you can add whatever you like in the Release table and make clear for example if it's the US release date, US Airplay date etc, there will be much less war editing this, as it's clear what it represents. SunCreator ( talk) 03:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
^^^ Who made this?
Why not make a compramise? This doesn't seem like it's going to be resolved soon, why does it have to be audio? As Lil-Unique has been doing why not just have the date the music video was released to iTunes if the song is never released for download. That way Airplay never has to be in an infobox or release history again. Jayy008 ( talk) 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe this has turned into such a lengthy discussion. Here is an easy process to follow as to determine the label's official release date for a song:
Example for 1: Take "Imma Be" which has been available since May 2009. It was sent to radio on 15 December 2009. As in, the label wanted it to get radio play and digital downloads starting on 15 December 2009 - they wanted it to chart starting on that date. Example for 2: "Boom Boom Pow" was sent to radio before it was available on iTunes - but we say that its official release date is the day it was added to the iTunes store. Example for 3: "Tik Tok" was available on iTunes in August but not sent to radio until after that. Despite this, we say that its release date is in August, as that was when it was available for purchase. Chele9211 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree but nobody else seems to, everyone knows a song is a single and just because it doesn't get released as a separate download, in America radio counts as it's release day. I don't see the problem. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically for United States if a song has no download release then include radio release because that's the only one if it does have digital release remove radio release a simple solution (Even if it's first). For every other country no radio releases should be included. That's my last point, short, simple and it would resolve this issue. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Take "I Kardia Sou Petra" by Elena Paparizou. It was not released as a dig download or physical other than purchase from the album. Sony Music says To νέο single από το άλμπουμ λέγεται Η Καρδιά Σου Πέτρα. (the new single of the album is "I Kardia Sou Petra"). Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this is the wrong section to include this example, but Fall to Pieces (Avril Lavigne song) was radio only, no music video or actual single, just promo singles, what happens then? Some editors here seem to be very sure of how radio stations work... what with randomly playing songs they like 155.69.192.144 ( talk) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Everyone needs to remember WP:POLL, by the way. As for my opinion, I go with option two. "Release" is sales terminology. Airplay is irrelevant; consider any freeform college or pirate radio station can play any song from an album of their choosing. The whole point of commerical airplay is to spur sales of commercial releases, be they singles or full-length albums. Airplay is a promotional tool, not necessarily a method of release in of itself. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Apologies if this was talked about above, but I just recently saw someone add Category: Barbra Streisand songs to an article about a song, and I notice that the category is a list of probably everything she's ever recorded. This seems to me to not only be overly excessive, but also would get utterly rediculous if every artist -- even just more major ones -- were listed. I can just imagines songs such as Summertime and Yesterday which have recordings numbering in the 3000s. Both of them alreayd have SOME artist categories listed, but if it were to continue, well I can't imagine ANYONE would agree that any article needs 100 categories. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Related to prior discussion but like from the other side, 'featured artist' page.
SEE
Tik Tok (song) page > Kesha singles chronology > "Right Round" (2009)
But this song was not released by Kesha as a single.
This appears to be misleading and I OPPOSE it.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
So then why should "Telephone" be listed in "Beyonce singles chronology"? An editor 'claiming' that it is a 'single' by the 'Featured artist'? huh? There is usually recognition in navboxes that there is a difference as it is not shown purely as a single because of an added 'group' section "Featured singles". It is appropriate there as it is shown correctly as being 'featured'. So the infobox appearances also need to be consistent with this 'recognized' difference and not report it as a 'single'. I also do not support the creation of Category: singles featuring Beyonce or a "Beyoncé featured singles chronology" Bold for emphasis only.— Iknow23 ( talk) 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that no one calls these "duets". I must presume that the term "featured" is being used for some reason.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is a "duet", then why don't both artists release it. Contracts could be made up that way.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between 'songs' and 'singles'.
I do not support "Beyonce songs chronology" because that would mean listing songs by Album 1, Track 1, Track 2... then Album 2, Track 1, Track 2...and other appearances placed in-between the Albums as appropriate to when they occurred. However a
Category:Foo songs is fine because it is an alpha list of songs in which they appear. I still say that any other artists should be PROPERLY credited [either as featuring with Foo, or it is Foo featuring with other artists] there as well.
Regarding "
Smooth", our answer is contained in the cover art (if OFFICIAL). It shows Rob Thomas as the featured artist. We may not all agree with that designation, but should stick with it as it is the 'credit' "agreed upon by all artists and their own record labels".—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that Universal Music Group has been moving their videos to VEVO and that prior 'regular' YouTube links are now dead. So if you have their YouTube music videos linked in infoboxes or used in references, you will most likely need to update them. According to the VEVO wiki, additonal record labels are expected to join VEVO. If they do, we can probably expect that their prior 'regular' YouTube links will also go dead.— Iknow23 ( talk) 06:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Breakeven is about a guy who likes a girl but the girl doesnt like him back and they broke up . But he still has a crush on her and he wishes she would come back to him. And the girl doesnt mind and shes totally fine but the boys upset I have the same situation cept im a girl and hes a guy and we were never a couple. Anyone else agree about the songs plot? If no, why not? ANyone else have adivce for me? 72.192.180.223 ( talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
For songs like Lady Gaga's Telephone (song) featuring Beyonce, the featured artist's singles chronology has been added to the infobox underneath the main artist's. I disagree with this practice because it implies that the single is also a single of the featured artist, which it is not in most cases. Beyonce and her record label did not release Telephone as a single from her album (or alone) and do promo for it, only Gaga did. So why have people been adding "Beyonce singles chronology" and the same for other artists to a song page that is not even a single for the artist being featured? I don't oppose some sort of chronology for the featured artist, but "singles" is misleading. The infobox guidelines are extremely vague so it would be great if we could decide what to do about featured artists and then add it. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 15:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Grk1011/Stephen for starting this discussion as I was about to do the same. I agree with you, "the chronology is for released 'singles' by the artist. Just because she sings in it does not make it her single. It's not 'Beyonce's new single' its 'Lady Gaga's new single with Beyonce in it'." Yes, there is a distinction between a 'featured artist' and THE 'releasing artist'. It is properly noted as being one of Beyoncé's "Featured singles" in her navbox.
My position is that "Beyoncé singles chronology" AND "Beyoncé singles" navbox should NOT appear on other artist's pages. Same to apply to other 'featured' artists for their chronology and navbox NOT to appear on the 'releasing' artist's pages.
What I have been doing, is including the 'featured' info along with the 'releasing' artist's infobox, with a link to the featured artist page. This plus the fact that the featured artist will undoubtedly be mentioned (and linked) within the article text should be sufficient credit for the featured artist. If anyone seeks further information on the featured artist, just click on one the links and go to their page. See example:
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
— Iknow23 ( talk) 04:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Revised my example. Beyoncé's last name is not necessary to appear, but still linked to her page. The reason that I suggest: "Telephone" (featuring Beyoncé) is that's the way I generally see such songs described and discussed. It's kind of like the industry term of 'standard usage' to describe this type of song. Thus, as it is generally understood, I thought we should adopt the same.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the points mentioned above are all valid and i think the consensus seems to be clear. "Telephone" is a Lady Gaga single which feature Beyonce. It is ONLY classified as a Lady Gaga single because it ONLY appears on HER album. Therefore there is no justification to put beyonce in the infobox. Had it featured on Beyonce's album then it would have been appropriate. Putting beyonce's catagory at the bottom of the page would be acceptable. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC))
Ok, let's try to put this in a more clear fashion.
'featured artist' in this example = Beyoncé
'releasing artist' in this example = Lady Gaga
LIST YOUR Support or Oppose of the following by indicating the number: (include explanation)
For clarity all items are listed in the 'positive', so no one has to say "No" to a 'negative' statement. This does not mean that I support them in the 'positive' position as you see below.
— Iknow23 ( talk) 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC) added parameter 5 — Iknow23 ( talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
revised position 4. — Iknow23 ( talk) 04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be fairly standard practice at WP to list the single chronology for both artists, see Dancing in the Street, Under Pressure, Video Phone (song), Beautiful Liar, Jimmy Crack Corn (song), I'm Gonna Make You Love Me, 4 Minutes (Madonna song), Especially for You and Where the Wild Roses Grow for the examples I found in a couple of minutes. More can be found at Category:Vocal duets. Those that are for these proposals will need to consider how it affects other songs and exactly what guidelines need to be created. It would be difficult to use which album the song came from for guidance, as some appear on both artist's albums and some songs are not featured on any album by either artist, some are released by artists on the same label, so record label doesn't sort it. I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find an example where the single was released on a third label! That, as far as I can see, only leaves one way to decide whether both artists are listed in the infobox singles chronology - set a percentage contribution necessary and get the tape measure out and measure the contribution of both artists. Besides failing WP:OR that wouldn't work! Remember any classification at WP is a blunt instrument at best and the creation of Category: singles featuring Beyonce where she is not the lead artist is not going to serve any real purpose.
In reality I think a great number of editors who have never seen this page and will not know this discussion is happening have already decided the issue for us.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Supporting number 1 and 2 just clutters the infobox. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Songs featuring other artists are not singles of the featured artist (unless perhaps both artists release them specifically as singles). No where does it say "Beyonce's new single Telephone" in sources and it would be original research to say it is which we have done here. It already says in the infobox "featuring Beyonce" so there is no reason to jam a Beyonce singles chronology onto the bottom just because it is a single with Beyonce in it. The chronology is for singles "by" the artist, not every song categorized as a single that the artist sings in. It is grossly misleading. The fact that many other song pages include the featured artist's chronology is not a good reason to oppose this change in practice because just because it occurs does not mean it is right. If the number of changes is the problem, make a list and I will personally correct them all. When we have massive category renamings we don't say oh well there's too many pages, so why would we in this case when the change is for a good reason?
As for the navboxes and categories, "Beyonce Knowles songs" is appropriate because it is a song with Beyonce (not a single, make the distinction). A navbox provides navigation between articles related to its subject. Beyonce being in the song makes it related to her, not to mention there is a section for songs of other artists that she is featured in. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
new parameter 5 Added above.
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
How's that? I don't really see the big deal about putting the featuring artist in the infobox: such as Telephone with Beyonce and Video Phone with Lady Gaga. Seeing as it's a single, the chronologies should mention whoever is featured in the single. Even though Video Phone is not Lady Gaga's 'song', she's featured in the 'single'. Like I said in the Video Phone discussion page, it's a single chronology, not a song chronology. They deserve credit too, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Adabow (
talk)
03:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
SEE "Video Phone [EXAMPLE 1]"
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
Since this is from the
"Video Phone" article and BOTH Beyoncé and Lady Gaga are discussed in the article text, seeing "Video Phone" THERE on THAT page in BOTH artist's chronology, it is understood [expained in the article text] that it has NOT been released separately by both artists, but both have contributed to it.
But then consider "Telephone" that appears in BOTH artists chronology WITHOUT being discussed in the article.
It looks like EACH artist has INDEPENDENTLY of each other coincidentally released a song with the same title. Two separate recordings of totally different songs, or the SAME song recorded separately by each singer.
My proposal to disambiguate this and to show proper credit to each artist is shown in "Video Phone [EXAMPLE 2]"
Others may think that this looks 'messy' but I contend that it is unavoidable and necessary to show proper credit to both artists.
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
— Iknow23 ( talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4" | |
---|---|
Song |
Such as:
Telephone by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé
As pointed out by Wolfer68, "The 'credit' is agreed upon by all artists and their own record labels."
Since this has been 'predetermined' by them, perhaps we should actually title the articles this way?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This way the proper 'credits' will display in the listing in the Cats, and wherever else the songs are linked.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of articles about songs recorded by more than one artist. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, it would be absolutely ridiculous to include every artist who recorded some songs as a category. Would you REALLY want 200 categories on Yesterday? The only time I could see it is if an artist is particularly associated with the song, like in the case of say Unchained Melody, where The Righteous Brothers recorded the definitive version, even though they didn't contibute to its creation. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In a case where there is a featured artist in a cover song, I would recommend something like: Telephone (cover by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé) <I know this is not a cover, just for example purposes.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Example revised— Iknow23 ( talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For singles that are released after an album, should the released date in the infobox indicate when the album was released or should it indicate when the single was released? For example, Runaway Train (song) was apparently released in an album in 1992, then as a single in 1993. Which should be used in the infobox? — RockMFR 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a good model for how to handle information about what songs are sampled in a given song or album? Should all the info be included, or is it indiscriminate? Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh my! I'll start with the easy one:
As to what 'these leave out', my position is ALWAYS disambiguate 'what specific recording of the song is sampled' as to what remix or cover version it is for example. I guess it is also possible to sample a cover version's sample of another song?! Of course the material should be verifiably referenced.
As to "how long the sample itself is", "if it's a short clip repeated", or consists of some repeating elements and others just used once, "whether the sample is altered in some way" - I am a bit hesitant here that it could be indiscriminate. A link could be given if someone wants this additional info like is on the
Feed the Animals#External links
Andy Baio's analysis regarding songs sampled in the album.
I would support a brief mention of "whether the sample is altered in some way" as in it was 'chopped and screwed' for example but very specific recording engineer or
DJ terminology is to be avoided. We do not have to have a manual as to how to re-create it. Like in: at song time index 0:26 - 0:32 insert sample time index 1:03 - 1:09 at time scale 76%, at song time index 1:18 - 1:31 insert sample time index 0:26 - 0:39 at time scale 115%, at song time index 2:02 - 2:08 insert sample 1 again, etc.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
On the article, " Tik Tok (song)", a user has cut the content out of the chart performance section and pasted it into another section which consists of the chart table and procession/succession box. I have since reverted it back to what it was because I want the issue resolved here so no edit war of such occurs. The reason given for this was per Wikipedia:SONGS#Chart performance.2C charts and succession. If that is the case, then why do other well written song articles that have passed WP:GA use the format where the chart performance has its own section? Examples include " Just Dance", " Poker Face (Lady Gaga song)" and " LoveGame." If this guideline had to be followed, I am sure the reviewer would of picked up on it. Must we follow exactly what it states? It does not say that it is compulsory to format it that way. • вяαdcяo chat 04:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I have a request for anyone who can read music and has the music notes software. I'm trying to do some work on the
composition section in "
City of Blinding Lights". What I have so far from the music notes software (
here) is "City of Blinding Lights" is played in a key of A-major at a speed of 139 BPM in common time. The vocals range from F♯4 to A7." What I think I need now is a chord sequence, the kind of tempo it is played at, and more specific vocal ranges throughout the song. The article recently passed GA and I'd really like to get it up to FA; but with what I have so far I think that just isn't possible. Any help that can be provided at all with this would be very much appreciated.
MelicansMatkin (
talk,
contributions)
22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have created articles for list of top 10 singles in the UK, from 2002 to 2010. 2003 and 2009 are the two years which are complete (but they need checking to see that I haven't missed any songs out). Can I get some collaboration going on the other existing articles. Chart data can be found here but make sure that you subtract 6 days off their listed dates to give the date that the chart was revealed. Please let me know here if you can help. Thanks. 03 md 00:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I nominated the article Pitchfork 500 : Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present to be moved to the simpler name The Pitchfork 500. Further explanation can be found at the talk page. Please offer your input if you are interested. (Also, I just added the WikiProject Songs banner to that article's talk page, since it wasn't under the scope of any WikiProject. This WikiProject seems the most relevant.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have put Giovinezza on hold at WP:GAR for a few (relatively) minor issues (see Talk:Giovinezza/GA1) however the main (and pretty much sole significant) contributor has informed me he doesn't have the time to fix it. If there are any interested parties, you've got a week to pop over. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Would it make sense to make every subcategory of Songs by year a subcategory of the corresponding Compositions by year category? Currently, 1999 songs is not a subcategory of 1999 compositions, but rather both are subcategories of 1999 works – even though a song is clearly a composition as well. Also, I think instrumental compositions should not be included in the "songs by year" categories, but rather directly under "compositions by year", as well as Instrumentals. What do you think? Jafeluv ( talk) 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a policy on double A-side singles about whether the songs both have individual articles? As I understand it, Wikipedia looks at music compositions as songs first and foremost and therefore charting songs should be given individual articles. For example, " Say Goodbye" and " Love Ain't Gonna Wait For You" by S Club both redirect to one article about the single, whereas " You and I" and " Don't Let Me Down" by Will Young are separate articles. Any ideas? 03 md 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see a discussion on the WikiProject Albums discussion page about the notion of when a single is and is not from an album. Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD are ostensibly in an "umbrella" role to all music-related projects. Contributions are invited to a new discussion on this topic. Thanks. PL290 ( talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I would just like to inform you that " City of Blinding Lights" is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should " aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification on the relevant WikiProject's talk page would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similarly-worded notification has also been placed at Talk:U2. Cheers, MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 01:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not involved with this or any other music-related WikiProject, but I thought there may be editors interested in participating in the Move Request discussion at Talk:Long Gone (1948 song). Another editor is suggesting that all articles with (song) in the title that are about instrumental compositions should be renamed, beginning with the four articles named in this Move Request. Propaniac ( talk) 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_My_Ex%27s_Live_in_Texas
Please someone fix the error in the title of the song on the above page. I fixed the errors I could but the title is not available for edit, I think.
THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.221.66 ( talk) 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The page is about the song from an EP/maxi-single that was released in Korea early last year.
However, the infobox is about the EP. It had the single infobox until recently, when an editor decided to switch it to the album...even though the chronology now lists the followup song instead of the followup EP.
Considering that the page has information on both, which infobox should be used? And should the album page be split off??? (The reason it hasn't is because almost all the information would be duplicated with a separate page; any standalone info about the album would amount to a stub article. But if there are convincing arguments, I can do the work to split it off.)
Any input would help. Thanks in advance. SKS ( talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
could someone give me additional opinions about the reliability of the following sources:
It's about the second/third single from
Rated R (Rihanna album), "Rude Boy". I initially left a message at
WP:RS/N, but since those are all very specialized music-related websites, I hope that someone here can give me an assessment.
Thank you,
Amalthea
16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm doing a GA review and would be grateful for input from knowledgeable editors here: Wikipedia:RSN#Musicnotes.com regarding use of musicnotes.com sheet music links as reliable sources in song articles.
It's about two things:
Please weigh in at RSN. Thanks for your time. -- JN 466 22:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
at Money (That's What I Want) changed the records podsiton on the "charts" to "chart." Is "charts" not always plural? I think so, but wish to get a 2nd, 3rd and even 4th opinon before reverting anythig. Your turn. einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So I think that the way it was edited is okay. However I don't know what the source for this info is - I'll look and see if I can find something about the R&B charts. thanks, Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
a category called Category: Hal Blaine Strikes Again and have been posting it on articles already written about the records that Blaine played on. Almost 100 so far. The title of the category refers to a rubber stamp that Blaine used to stamp his charts with. I realize that neither the category nor its name are mainstream, but, does everything need to be? Anyway, the category is up for deletion and I'm hoping that editors who at least are knowledgeable and care about this sort of thing will look and think and and vote [1] there. Vote any way that you wish, but do check it out. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 03:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
When you click the (see Release information) you get a table something like the one below.
Region | Date | Type | Other Details |
---|---|---|---|
United States | January 20, 2009 [1] | Airplay | |
January 30, 2009 [2] | Physical | CD single, 12" Club Promo | |
January 30, 2009 [3] | Digital single | ||
Brazil | February 11, 2009 [4] | Digital single | |
Australia | February 19, 2010 [5] | Physical | CD single, 12" |
February 15, 2009 [6] | Digital single | Radio edit | |
Germany | April 3, 2009 [7] | Digital single | |
United Kingdom | January 22, 2009 [8] | Digital single | Live version |
January 25, 2009 [9] | Wikipedia remix | ||
April 1, 2009 [10] | Radio edit featuring Chipmunk. | ||
February 1, 2010 [11] | Physical | CD single, 7", 12", CD Maxi |
Advantages of this is likely to considerably reduce war editing as release date spells out more about what sort of release date it is. Table is flexible, so we can add relevent release information as we see fit. SunCreator ( talk) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I find release history tables cumbersome and hard to verify with older releases. That's why I always opt for prose instead, and I personally recommend the same to others. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I would rather keep the release date as agreed in the previous conversation's consensus "the earliest date you can purchase the single, with exception to songs exclusively released in the US where it has been made explicitly clear that the song is a single but it was only released to radio." Lil-unique1 ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
infobox single}}
and {{
infobox song}}
to work out. Yet, I think this is misleading us. Each article is about a song - we often has this in the titles
Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) for example, yet we try and establish if it's a single in order to conclude things like it's single release date, yet in fact the article is a song and a song can be released whether it's a single or not.
SunCreator (
talk)
00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)the song is stated on wikipedia to have been written in 1982. Then how come BJ Thomas released it as a single in 1972 as shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.J._Thomas ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.240.103 ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please assess a rating for this article or direct me to someone who can. Thank you. Sarujo ( talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has just has its GA status reassessed as part of the WP:SWEEPS; the article was found to have substantial problems, especially in the matter of referencing and Lead layout. Given the substantial nature of these deficiencies, the article has been failed immediately as it is felt that the necessary improvements required to meet the GA criteria will not be made within a 7-day grace period. However, as there has been some (minor) activity on this article recently, and because it is listed under 3 WikiProjects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed and resolved within 7 days, I will undertake an immediate GA review to re-list the article. The reassessment review can be found here. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this matter. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This issue keeps popping up. so need to bring it here.
Radio is not a release date, see example
Video Phone (song) U.S. radio on September 22, 2009 but "Released November 17, 2009" in infobox & "Release history" section. Also in infobox = "Format CD single, digital download". Sending to Radio is PROMOTION prior to release as a Single and does not constitute 'creating' it as a Single. I'm sure that there are MANY MANY MANY songs (Promotional Singles) sent to Radio that are ignored. Due to the failure of this 'promotion' the Record labels probably decide to cancel their plans for the Release of such songs as a Single (SALES). If they are never sold as a SINGLE, I don't call them a single. Radio PROMOTION dates can be mentioned in the article Lead as background info leading up to the Release as a Single or the failure of such release.
It is Not a single while only being sold [commercially released] as an ALBUM track. When sold as a single it will have a different release date than the album.
Per the Lead Performer,
Selena Gomez at
http://www.facebook.com/Selena?v=feed&story_fbid=137239266694 "album comes out next Tuesday September 29th...the record release party that night as well!!!!!!!!" The record release party is to celebrate the SALES release of the Album. Please note that the release party was not held on Friday, September 25, upon the completion of the PROMOTIONAL play at
Radio Disney.
Do I make any sense here? What does everyone think?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Referring to whether airplay release dates should be included in release history, on GA's such as LoveGame and Already Gone airplay dates are included in release history. Also Radio Disney is promotion for Disney, and is not compared to standard radio stations. As for the Blah Blah Blah discussion, "The add date (set by the artist and their people) is a "push" for radio stations to add the song to their playlist for rotation" -- can be compared to the date set by the artist and their people to purchase by digital download or a CD single. With that said, both sales and airplay contribute to position on charts, so should be represented equally. One more thing, for the Eh, Eh, article referred to in the Blah Blah discussion, I agree that the case would be different when the info box becomes lengthy. And yes, songs do not have to be singles to chart these days, but they can also chart soley on airplay also, (ex. Try Again). I think there are very few cases in which radio singles are not release as physical/digital singles. Try Again is one of the only that fall into that category, and even it was eventually released physically. Also it remains to be released to radio only, then that's just presumably a promo single. Candyo32 ( talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If there is something more specific, I am happy to comment again. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the release date is when you can buy/download a single. Allowing the inclusion of airplay as a release date will confused the matter because like the comment above radio stations can choose to solicit a song and play it to radio when it leaks before it is even announced as a single. However i think there needs to be guidance on the subject. For example " Up Out My Face (Remix)" by Mariah Carey was sent to radio stations on Jan 26, 2010 and will be released mainstream radio on Feb 16. Even though it has been called a single and her website is even promoting this I changed the release date to Feb 3, 2010 which is when you can buy the music video. Also in the US artists tend to release radio only singles, therefore under those circumstances the radio airplay date = the release date. I am under the opinion that if a digital download/CD single date is available it should prevail as the release date over the radio airplay release. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I personally disagree, especially since songs are released as promo radio-only singles as Lil-unique1 noted. I see the point that DJs can begin playing songs as early or late as they want to, but that does not disguise the fact that record labels actually do send out singles to radio on certain dates. If a song is released to radio before it's released to retail and the radio release date is known, the first date (which would be the radio date) should be used. – Chase ( talk) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(←) It seems that we've gone off topic. This isn't about what release causes a song to chart, it's about the earliest release, which we are to go with per Template:Infobox single. In many cases that is the radio release. Many times radio stations give songs unofficial spins (recent examples would be " Telephone" by Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and " Blah Blah Blah" by Kesha and 3OH!3). However, often times record labels send out singles to radio for airplay. That is technically considered a release, in my opinion. – Chase ( talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. User:Liquidluck and I have always left single release dates as the release of the digital single or the CD single because airplay does not make a single. Airplay doesn't even make a promo singles for various reasons. Let's take songs that receive airplay on Radio Disney to promote upcoming albums, more specifically the album Hannah Montana 3: eleven of fourteen songs received airplay on Radio Disney and having almost the entire album as singles seems ridiculous. In fact, right now, the article has songs that were not released as singles under the single list but once I get to that article I will correct it. -- 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems we require to break this discussion in sections somehow. I note in the above discussion there is even differing definition of what constitutes a 'Single' . So sorting this out could take a while. SunCreator ( talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I must protest the spitting of the two areas. The infobox must MATCH with the earliest date shown in the 'Release history' section for consistency within the article. Indeed, many many infoboxes have links to '(see Release history)'.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
OK use the space below to vote (and only vote) for the consensus about INFOBOX dates.
Based upon discussion above and realizing, as in most things in life, there are variances and exceptions:
Take "I Kardia Sou Petra" by Elena Paparizou. It was not released as a dig download or physical other than purchase from the album. Sony Music says To νέο single από το άλμπουμ λέγεται Η Καρδιά Σου Πέτρα. (the new single of the album is "I Kardia Sou Petra"). Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I PROPOSE that for these SPECIAL market (country or region) established practice instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that are NOT AVAILABLE INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ALBUM, that we split the Release shown in the infobox. First row to display 'Released DATE' Second row '(Domestic,
Radio single)' Third row 'DATE', Fourth row '(International [or Regional, whichever seems more appropriate],
Digital download,
CD'. The Release history section in these SPECIAL market instances would show the Radio Airplay info.
PLEASE, Agree or Disagree.
Agree - of course.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote for #1 obviously. Jayy008 ( talk) 02:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me basically what I proposed, with the SPECIAL area variations, except you only want ONE release date showing in the infobox. The above ""this was never released as CD or Download, the page should be deleted" is not accurate. If it is notable, it could be converted to an infobox song and remain. As I stated way above, I do NOT grant United States similar exception. If the Record company can't be bothered to even set a Digital download SEPARATE from the Album track, it remains an Album track, not a Single.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote #1
Jayy008 (
talk)
02:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I support #2. Also, if you look at wiki for
Radio single, it redirects to 'Promotional recording' "distributed free in order to promote a commercial recording...usually sent out to music radio and television stations, music journalists and reviewers in advance of the official release date" < advance of Official release date means prior to as in the ADVANCED copies of albums. We don't consider the ADVANCED date there to be 'released' as we wait and use the 'first sales' date instead.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me to grant a special exception for the United States as it was intended only for SPECIAL market (country or region) established practice instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that are NOT AVAILABLE INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ALBUM. If the US gets the exception too, what's the point. Why not give it to everybody, in which case it is not an exception but the rule?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This is getting way too confusing, but I support #1 Candyo32 ( talk) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a third option. Jayy008 ( talk) 03:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I fully support the use of a (See Release) button/link. Personally I don't understand why we even have a release date in the info box. Why not have it all in a Release table? That way you can add whatever you like in the Release table and make clear for example if it's the US release date, US Airplay date etc, there will be much less war editing this, as it's clear what it represents. SunCreator ( talk) 03:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
^^^ Who made this?
Why not make a compramise? This doesn't seem like it's going to be resolved soon, why does it have to be audio? As Lil-Unique has been doing why not just have the date the music video was released to iTunes if the song is never released for download. That way Airplay never has to be in an infobox or release history again. Jayy008 ( talk) 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe this has turned into such a lengthy discussion. Here is an easy process to follow as to determine the label's official release date for a song:
Example for 1: Take "Imma Be" which has been available since May 2009. It was sent to radio on 15 December 2009. As in, the label wanted it to get radio play and digital downloads starting on 15 December 2009 - they wanted it to chart starting on that date. Example for 2: "Boom Boom Pow" was sent to radio before it was available on iTunes - but we say that its official release date is the day it was added to the iTunes store. Example for 3: "Tik Tok" was available on iTunes in August but not sent to radio until after that. Despite this, we say that its release date is in August, as that was when it was available for purchase. Chele9211 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree but nobody else seems to, everyone knows a song is a single and just because it doesn't get released as a separate download, in America radio counts as it's release day. I don't see the problem. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically for United States if a song has no download release then include radio release because that's the only one if it does have digital release remove radio release a simple solution (Even if it's first). For every other country no radio releases should be included. That's my last point, short, simple and it would resolve this issue. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Take "I Kardia Sou Petra" by Elena Paparizou. It was not released as a dig download or physical other than purchase from the album. Sony Music says To νέο single από το άλμπουμ λέγεται Η Καρδιά Σου Πέτρα. (the new single of the album is "I Kardia Sou Petra"). Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this is the wrong section to include this example, but Fall to Pieces (Avril Lavigne song) was radio only, no music video or actual single, just promo singles, what happens then? Some editors here seem to be very sure of how radio stations work... what with randomly playing songs they like 155.69.192.144 ( talk) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Everyone needs to remember WP:POLL, by the way. As for my opinion, I go with option two. "Release" is sales terminology. Airplay is irrelevant; consider any freeform college or pirate radio station can play any song from an album of their choosing. The whole point of commerical airplay is to spur sales of commercial releases, be they singles or full-length albums. Airplay is a promotional tool, not necessarily a method of release in of itself. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)