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. |
I see that the song Golden Lady was omitted from the list of songs for Stevie Wonder. Please add. February 3, 2011 174.103.223.34 ( talk) 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The article A New Starsystem Has Been Explored has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The article The New Year (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Do stop this confusion, I have started an essay on promo singles. For those who wish to contribute do. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Nick's Boogie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the source for this claim? Is this original research? The notes are simply not the same as Led Zeppelin's Custard Pie, so I suggest deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 ( talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This is in relation to the article on Smokey Robinson's Mickey's Monkey - I meant to put it on that talk page. Sorry everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 ( talk) 16:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article No Vendrá has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
17:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I always wanted to nominate the article for one of Nine Inch Nails' first singles, " Head Like a Hole", for Good Article status. Can I do so? (Answer this question please.) '| () () `'/ I> ( talk) 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, do that tommorow, or later than that, or the next week. '| () () `'/ I> ( talk) 04:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The Infobox section says "Use {{Infobox song}} for album tracks and B-sides." Why suggest it for "B-sides" when {{Infobox single}} can be used which shows more information? Some editors have interpreted this as a requirement that B-side song articles not use {{Infobox single}}, and instead must use {{Infobox song}}. " Single" is defined as "(45rpm vinyl record)", both A- and B-sides qualify under that description. Single (music) does not differentiate between A- and B-sides either. The {{Infobox single}} fields A-side, Last single and Next single links are useful for B-side song articles to easily navigate the chronology. Replacing it with {{Infobox song}} only serves to remove this information, as well as the cover image which is also appropriate for the B-side of a 45. {{Infobox song}} contains the fields prev_no, track_no, and next_no, which are specific to albums, and usually inappropriate for 45s (A- or B-sides). Perhaps the Infobox section text should be changed from:
to:
CuriousEric Talk 22:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen both the artist's real name (e.g. Marshall Mathers) and their stage name (e.g. Eminem) credited as a writer. Which is the proper one to use? For example, The Way I Am (Eminem_song) says that Marshall Mathers wrote it, but Eminem produced it. To me, this is downright silly. Can we find a uniform way to credit the writer and producer? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
producer=Eminem / writer=Marshell Mathers
. However in the lead section it would be better saying something like ... "Eminem also wrote and produced the single". You can always check with ASCAP or BMI Repertoire too. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
[talk]
23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is how it always is. Artists/producers are credited by their legal name in writing, proper name in production (i.e. Christopher Stewart is always credited in his legal name in the writers section, but as Tricky Stewart in production). On how to credit, I echo Lil's first statement. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with whether readers know artists' real names or whether it is common practice to use stage names in one instance and given names in another. The fact is that infoboxes are for the most directly accurate data, so in the vast majority of cases what actually appears on the credits of the actual release is what is to be used there. The article text can say that the artist (as commonly known, in the case of Eminem or Lady Gaga, those names, and not their given names) wrote and produced the song even if they were credited under different names for the different aspects, but the infobox must indicate what is officially used. Wikilink the infobox use of the less-familiar name to the artist's bio (presumably under the stage name), and this will serve to educate some readers that they are one and the same.
Incidentally, the reason is that production credits are only relevant from a points structure regarding purchases of the recording, while writing credits are relevant from both the standpoint of purchases and commercial use (airplay, use in nightclubs or other media, etc.). Most recording artists start to copyright their songs under their full legal name before they become known under (or legally change their real name to) a stage name, and continue to use the original name so that accounting and payment of all of their writing/usage royalties will be unified.
However, although this explains why this is generally what happens, there is no editorial rule, as DanielDPeterson infers, that "the writer is the person and producer is stage name". The editorial rule is that we are to use what the official release uses, and someone who doesn't have access to the official release (or have a digital version that does not attribute the credits) should not be editing this aspect of the article. It's about the most reliable usage, and the official hard copy of the release and/or official copyright and/or official Billboard single review formal writer attribution is the source to determine reliable, official usage for the official infobox field. Abrazame ( talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
On a related issue, I think it should be normal (ie unless there are really strong reasons not to - which I can't at the moment imagine what they are) to say who wrote a song and not just attribute it to the person who recorded it. Obvious, perhaps, but easy to miss. And probably very annoying if you wrote the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbax ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Previous Discussions
Notified by -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk]
Over the past month or so, there has been a disagreement on the page for Lady Gaga's " Dance in the Dark" on whether it is a regular single or a promotional single. The discussion is moving towards a deadlock with both sides not giving in. I am asking the community to weigh in on the issue. It would probably be best for those interested to comment here and this discussion should be about promotional single versus single in general, not specifically related to "Dance in the Dark"; that discussion can be had on the article talk page. Instead of summarizing the debate so far in what will probably come out as a biased account favoring my views, please review what we have so far: talk page discussion and definition of a promo single. Grk1011 ( talk) 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Really, the discussion on the page speaks for itself. A few users are trying to make a promotional single something it is not per its definition, and push a consensus that never even happened. People also need to get out of the US/UK mindset when thinking of these things. Just because its the English Wikipedia doesn't mean it revolves around those countries. Single releases happen differently around the world. Regardless, all the points are in the discussion. It would be really helpful if the community could weigh in now. Greekboy ( talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
After doing some investigating using Google Books to comb through Billboard archived editions, all hits for "promotional single" or "promo single" described a promotional single as being a recording sent to radio stations by the label, or handed out to DJs. In some cases the artist even filmed a music video for said promotional single, and other times it did not even make the album cut. None of the hits ever mentioned a promotional single as being classified as something sold commercially, but as something distributed free. These below quotes display that a promotional single and commercial release (single) are something separate:
It clearly is not a promotional recording based on the fact that it was released commercially. Greekboy ( talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If your talking about the UK the answer is Dance in the Dark was a single and not a promotional single. The official chart rules are found at http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-rules/. In the pdf page 8, exclusion 5.2 is says that any Promotional Products are not eligible for inclusion in the charts. As you likely know Dance in the Dark entered the UK charts on the week ending Dec 5, 2009(can be sourced to chart stats and Music Week writeup). No doubt that won't end the argument but thought it useful to at least point of the technical answer to the question from a UK perspective. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
ĈÞЯİŒ 1000 & Candyo32. Please continue the promotional single discussion in my Proposal 2 below & thanks.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the bolding above. I wanted to clearly show my additions and changes there.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this is more complicated than it needs to be. Perhaps we just need a simple defintion...
"A single is a song (sometimes with accompanying B-sides) which is released independently of its parent album. That release can either be through airplay (e.g. a radio add date sourced from FMBQ or MediaBase) or a commercial release through digital download or CD single. Either release is considered valid, providing there is some evidence that the release is independent of the release of its parent album (e.g. a separate listing on digital download websites, separate cover art etc.)."
I believe this would solve all issues as it removes the element of speculation. At the end of the day once a song is released the public generally consider it a single even if the label later decides its not her official single. It would mean that things such as " Raining Men" and " Wait Your Turn" would be considered official releases though... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Songs are released digitally independent of the album everyday, but they are not singles. "iTunes Countdown Singles" to name on kind. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 12:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a pretty excellent start. User:Grk1011 also brought up an interesting point on the DITD talk. I agree with much of what has been written in the proposal. It would be nice to get more input from the community as well though. Greekboy ( talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Adapting from above
"A single is a song (including any accompanying B-sides) which is released (made available for sale) independently of its parent album or EP. That release can be through digital download and/or CD single snd/or any other means. The presence or lack thereof of promotional activity, such as radio adds, cover art, music videos, etc. has no bearing. It is a single based on the virtue of its independent release. However, this does not include iTunes Countdown to album/EP release 'singles' as they are merely album tracks stripped out for pre-sale to the album/EP."
Of course the promotional activity frequently occurs as a means to increase sales, but unnecessary to qualify for the term 'single'.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what this proposal is. Am I missing something here? No doubt in my mind are the songs you listed promotional singles. "Wait Your Turn" was released prior to the release of the album digitally only, while the other songs on the album were sent to radio, that's always been the difference. So what you're saying is that "E.T.", "Circle the Drain" and "Not like the Movies" are singles as well? "Mean" and "Speak Now" as well? ℥ nding· start 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, how about putting it this way:
Terms should be able to be applied across the spectrum and not just be limited to 'singles'. Terms must also allow for items that may not qualify for wiki articles but that do certainly exist.— Iknow23 ( talk) 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I support this proposal as well. All arguments against it are once again original research and if there are sources, they are about other songs then synthesized to support the categorization of a completely different song. As for "Dance in the Dark", I still haven't seen a source calling it a "countdown single", so there is no argument there. Additionally, reliable sources in most cases will almost always allow for there to be room to show some judgment. This proposal seeks to define the general terms. If certain songs mentioned above are special cases so be it, but their special cases shouldn't be used to redefine established industry terms which already have a known meaning. Grk1011 ( talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Right in the promo single article, iTunes and other markets have recently began distributing promotional singles for a price separate from their parent albums. And Grk1011, you and Greekboy seem to not understand what WP:SYNTHESIS is. Synthesis is joining together two sources that state different things about one topic in order to come up with a conclusion that is not mentioned in either sources. The sources on promo single support that iTunes did distribute a promotional single. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(reply to Candyo32) I call a countdown single 'available' instead of released as Lil-unique1 points out that these are only temporary products available for a limited time.
Regarding..."labels would just be like 'play our songs'." No, just random like that will have less effect on the charts, so they request a specific date that they would like all the stations to start playing such-and-such song. This combined effort can possibly generate greater charting success.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
07:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
To my limited knowledge, "Release" is a V-E-R-Y specific industry term, meaning 'available for sale'. It doesn't matter if this is physical and/or digital and/or any other means available now or in the future. It doesn't matter if the item charts or has any sales at all, it is still released as of the Release date.
I believe that Wikipedia should always use correct terminology and use it correctly for any subject matter. Thus if we say 'sent to radio' we have done our job. It doesn't matter if the average reader converts that in their mind to 'released to radio'.
Section headers such as 'Purchasable release' are a redundant term. "Release history' will suffice quite fine. Has anyone ever seen the industry say 'Purchasable release'?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
01:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Release date thus is the first date available for purchase anywhere in the world, not necessarily your country or region. And the item still has been released even if never in your country or region. iTunes Countdown to album/EP programs do not qualify as they are merely album tracks stripped out for pre-sale to their parent album/EP.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
edited to discuss iTunes—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you somewhat. But a radio date still shows a single release. I'm a bit confused about what you mean (still). ℥ nding· start 03:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо's comment) You are saying that Radio add date is a requirement, when you say, "It is a way for a song to be labeled as a single."— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to Iknow23's reply to my comment) No, I am saying such makes a song as single. Why would I say it has to be released to radio to qualify as a single? That makes no sense. It can, but it doesn't have to be. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Alejandro does not depend on US radio to be called a single. It is actually released for sales in other countries. Just to be sure what you mean; EVERY song with a Radio add date IS a single as of that date? It would have to be a general rule that applies to all songs, not only those that really receive airplay or qualify for Wiki articles.— Iknow23 ( talk) 05:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Song samples on pages are typically random lengths. What's the reason for this? Can't we make them a standard 30-seconds? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 03:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I figured this has/d something to do with copyright issues. I was just hoping to be able to switch to a more uniform style of samples. DanielDPeterson ( talk) 16:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
See Table showing productivity/size of the 48 music projects for information about this project and other music groups. -- Klein zach 07:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey songsbods!
I was just putting up a small request for anyone with some spare time and music love! I've just tidied the front page of the notable songs list, and I was hoping to get closer to killing it stone dead. However, a lot of it is far outside my own fields of expertise, and was hoping that some knowledeable souls might be interested in helping get this done.
If I ever pull my finger out, I may even make some sort of prize for being nice helpy types, although I'm newish and haven't tried this before...
Any help would be appreciated! Bennydigital ( talk) 10:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In the 1986 Tony Scott's film Top Gun, Tom Cruise and Anthony Edwards sang it at the Aviators Club in Miramar to Kelly McGillis the day before the Top Gun program starts, "Maverick", assisted by "Goose", unsuccessfully approaches a girl by singing this classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.152.136.142 ( talk) 09:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What can be done with this page? It has been around 2004, but it's an orphan and hasn't really improved. Peter Moulton ( talk) 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The article One Day at a Time (Em's Version) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
10:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if this is isn't the appropriate place to discuss this but I'm new to WP:WikiProject Songs. I'm in the process of updating the singles for Hole, PJ Harvey and Imelda May and I'm familiar with how to submit an album's page for assessment, I done so with Imelda May's Mayhem but I'm confused on how to do it with song pages. I recently created/wrote the page for PJ Harvey's " The Words That Maketh Murder and spent a lot of time writing the article to meet Good Article criteria, basing it on Nirvana's " Heart-Shaped Box." Could someone inform me how to go about submitting a song's page for asssessment or even more helpfully, could someone, who has the authority to do so, assess the article? It'd be much appreciated! - Idiotchalk ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that an article for a song should be a significant hit on at least one music chart, where do we draw the line on what constitutes a significant hit? Top 10, top 20, top 40? I would imagine anything below this (on only one chart) wouldn't be significant enough. But perhaps it's time to consider where the line should be drawn - or perhaps it could relate also to number of weeks on the chart? -- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (Note- This post also has been included on the Notability (music) talkpage).
I have nominated Adam and Evil for deletion as a non-notable Elvis Presley song, but Blofeld thinks every Elvis song deserves an article, even if it means creating a one sentence stub that provides zero information and offers zero sources and the song was nothing more than an album cut. Do articles such as A House That Has Everything need to exist. I suggest redirecting until they can be expanded, if they can, but I figured I'd leave it in more knowledgable hands. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor is claiming that his addition of a "synopsis" section to One Mic should be kept as he "derived the synopsis from viewing the video". Is this valid? Or should he have used the Template:Cite video? Dan56 ( talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Writing what happened from watching the video is not WP:OR. Its a synopsis which wikipedia allows. Many film and TV articles have reached GA and FA with that. However it is conceivable that it would be best practise to cite the video but other than that there is no major issue here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The Hung Medien site currently provides a chart which combines the physical and the digital markets for albums and singles (the first edition of this "new" chart was that of the 29 January 2011, which explains the high number of entries and big drops that week). However, this chart seems to be unofficial: the site of the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique continues to publish the physical chart and the digital chart separately. There is nothing about the chart displayed on Hung Medien. So, on WP, which is considered as the "official" number one single of the chart edition of 19 March 2011: On the Floor (Hung Medien) or " Celui" (SNEP)? PS: Sorry for my bad English... Europe22 ( talk) 20:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Had a question related to the Razor's Edge song page. There is also a song and album by AC/DC called Razor's Edge that was relatively popular in the US at least. Is there any thoughts about adding that info to the Razor's Edge (song) page as a second topic/subject. Coppermallow ( talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Using ASCAP I've listed the credits for " On the Floor" by Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull. Most sources from news sites etc. have said that RedOne produced the song. Last week Billboard published a review of the song where they named the producers of the song as RedOne and Kuk Harrell. Harrell is known as vocal producer mainly but I've noticed that it is not common practise to list vocal producers alongside music producers. Am I right to omitt Harrell's name from the infobox on the basis that only one source mentions him? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
New issue... Musicnotes.com and The CD cover at Brave.de ( here) both list Teddy Sky as a writer, ASCAP doesn't list Sky, but does list another person, Geraldo Sindell. What to do in this situation? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
i read about 3 or 4 weeks ago that it has sold about 2.5 million in US and now probably it has reached 3 million and it shoud be confirmed on the certifications of US of the page!!! or whenever it reached please confirm it ASAP!!
thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.158.95 ( talk) 10:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.— Kww( talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
What kind of software can I use to create song clips? Can I use Audacity?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
We have had many discussions regarding 'Radio only' singles that do not have independent sales from a parent project available. I see the use of infobox single in these circumstances as trying to fit a large square into a small circle. This does not really fit as infobox single field is called 'Release' and not 'Radio date'. 'Release' means sales per the industry usage. I could support an infobox Radio single and article text using correct terminology of not calling Radio a "Release". I know we have been calling these 'Radio singles', the qualifier 'Radio' removes the sales requirement.
Does anyone really know if the industry would support this?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Standard singles have true release dates (independent sales...). That is why we have been calling the hybrid a 'radio single' to disambiguate it. I am always a bit confused (and maybe bemused) whenever I see such as at
Take It Off (song), "It was released as the fourth official single from the album on July 13, 2010." not agreeing that Radio date = Release (which is independent sales date) The quote is
WP:WEASEL is it not? What does that really mean? Does it mean that there are also UNoffical singles from the album prior to this single? Why not just say "It is the fourth single" period? I have seen other language such as "serves as the xxth single from album". To me that means that the writer (editor) is 'reaching' or 'stretching' attempting to convince others that it is so when it is in dispute! I consider "serves as" meaning it isn't really, but the editor wants us to think so. Should just clearly state either it is a single or it isn't (or what type of single perhaps).
Thank you for mentioning Remixes as I was just about to mention those. With the advent of the often several remixes being made, whenever they are sold independently of a parent project...the song has then been 'released' as a single, even if the radio or album version has not been previously. This is because we have articles on 'songs' and not every separate version thereof. The article should be titled with only the 'song' (single) title and not include the remix version(s) that are sold in the article title. However in the article itself ALL versions of the song (single) are to be described as we see in Track listings. Radio add dates can be mentioned of the various versions that have one. And 'release dates' should be detailed and properly attributed to those versions that have that as well.
I recognize in this section header that the industry must prevail "Radio single if the industry would support this." However the industry does NOT support calling Radio dates a 'release' either, so how can we? They go through great pains to avoid it, which is why I strive to do the same. They call it "Radio add date", "going for adds" etc but NOT 'release'.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, what do you want to do. The infobox radio single proposal is dead(?), so what would you like to change? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) i think the main concern here is what defines a single? By wikipedia's old approach a single was released for purchase separate from an album and promoted that way. Now in the digital age individual songs can be purchased as a component track of an album effectively quashing the old theory. Equally labels are seemingly sending songs to radio without clarifying the purpose of doing so. My understanding is that labels have to pay to send songs to radio and so would only do so if they wanted it as a single. Equally iTunes often removes singles after the album's release as it unnecessarily increases the size of their database. Sometimes Amazon and 7Digital retain the separate digital releases. I thus concur that the solution might be to consider radio and digital releases as one in the same. Either way the label has to pay to get the song out there and the only reason for doing so is the wish to see it chart and generate its own revenue stream... we have a one size fits all policy here and so instead of adding an infobox type perhaps removing the distinction from single and song is best. One simple 'song' infobox might serve the purpose better. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok so if a song is only released in one territory but only receives a radio add, the label promotes it as a single (e.g. a press release or interview mentioning the song's release as a single) then what do you call that song? a single? or something else? what do you actually propose calling a song which is only sent to radio? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
What about:
New thought...due to singles chronology order may need to state BOTH dates if Radio is first.
'Impacted' on April 10, 2011 as the third single from DEF's third album, GHI and was released on May 1, 2011.
In such case I would want to see both listed in the infobox, the radio date being notable as this is the date we are using to call it a single [with (Radio) indicated after the date] and a br to a next line to report the 'release' date. Since the field is actually titled 'Release' we need to report that date there.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hang on, why? If we have already determined that radio is a form of release, why do we need two separate dates? That's pointless. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the infobox needs modifying to add radio date field? (i thought i'd throw it out there) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
“ | When a song's radio impact date comes before the song's digital download and/or CD single release date, place radio dates in the 'radio add date' field, and purchase dates in the 'release date' field. If a song only receives a radio add date, use only the 'radio add date' field. If a song is released before its radio add date then the 'release date' field should be used and the 'radio add date' field should be left blank. | ” |
Feel free to modify the suggestion as required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(→) Iknow... already listed a proposal while i was typing LOL. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright those answer the single's field, what about the album's field? Which date is to be used first? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict):(CK)Lakeshade - You would have to bring that up now, LOL. I was hoping to resolve this portion first before tackling that...but since you brought it up...need to add a 'Radio date' field for the singles chrono listings on album pages as well. I would just use the Radio date when FIRST as this is what created it as a single and determines its placement within the chrono.— Iknow23 ( talk) 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
By revising the Infobox single template to add a field parameter, look at "Radio" and "Released" below:
{{Infobox single <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs --> | Name = | Cover = <!-- just the file name --> | Border = | Alt = | Caption = | Artist = | Album = | A-side = | B-side = | Radio = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ONLY USE when there is ONLY an OFFICIAL Radio date [(no release (Sales) date at all], or the OFFICIAL Radio date is prior to the Release date. --> | Released = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ALWAYS USE when there is a 'Release' (sales) date, even if later than an OFFICIAL Radio date. --> | Format = | Recorded = | Genre = | Length = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} --> | Label = | Writer = | Producer = | Certification = | Chronology = | Last single = | This single = | Next single = | Misc = }}
— Iknow23 ( talk) 05:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Iknow23 is right in making the encyclopedic distinction between actual single releases and radio songs. I think the way he suggests handling it in the revised infobox template above is a simple, subtle way of doing so. It adds value and is explained in a way that competent editors should have no problem with. The only alteration I would suggest is to highlight the difference by framing the box in a different color, much in the way we have seen fit to frame studio albums in blue, live albums in brown, greatest hits albums in green, and soundtrack albums in grey, despite the fact that they all share the same commercial availability. We already use distinct colors to discern between a song that stands on its own in the marketplace as a distinct commercial product unto itself and one that does not, in that we use yellow for commercial singles and pale blue for album tracks. I propose we either use the album track pale blue for radio-only songs (as album tracks have long been promoed to rock radio, for example) or devise a distinct color (a combination of the two, pale green?) for promo-only songs (regardless of what media they are transferred to radio on). Abrazame ( talk) 09:51, 12 April 2011 (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. |
I see that the song Golden Lady was omitted from the list of songs for Stevie Wonder. Please add. February 3, 2011 174.103.223.34 ( talk) 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The article A New Starsystem Has Been Explored has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The article The New Year (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Do stop this confusion, I have started an essay on promo singles. For those who wish to contribute do. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Nick's Boogie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the source for this claim? Is this original research? The notes are simply not the same as Led Zeppelin's Custard Pie, so I suggest deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 ( talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This is in relation to the article on Smokey Robinson's Mickey's Monkey - I meant to put it on that talk page. Sorry everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 ( talk) 16:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article No Vendrá has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
17:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I always wanted to nominate the article for one of Nine Inch Nails' first singles, " Head Like a Hole", for Good Article status. Can I do so? (Answer this question please.) '| () () `'/ I> ( talk) 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, do that tommorow, or later than that, or the next week. '| () () `'/ I> ( talk) 04:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The Infobox section says "Use {{Infobox song}} for album tracks and B-sides." Why suggest it for "B-sides" when {{Infobox single}} can be used which shows more information? Some editors have interpreted this as a requirement that B-side song articles not use {{Infobox single}}, and instead must use {{Infobox song}}. " Single" is defined as "(45rpm vinyl record)", both A- and B-sides qualify under that description. Single (music) does not differentiate between A- and B-sides either. The {{Infobox single}} fields A-side, Last single and Next single links are useful for B-side song articles to easily navigate the chronology. Replacing it with {{Infobox song}} only serves to remove this information, as well as the cover image which is also appropriate for the B-side of a 45. {{Infobox song}} contains the fields prev_no, track_no, and next_no, which are specific to albums, and usually inappropriate for 45s (A- or B-sides). Perhaps the Infobox section text should be changed from:
to:
CuriousEric Talk 22:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen both the artist's real name (e.g. Marshall Mathers) and their stage name (e.g. Eminem) credited as a writer. Which is the proper one to use? For example, The Way I Am (Eminem_song) says that Marshall Mathers wrote it, but Eminem produced it. To me, this is downright silly. Can we find a uniform way to credit the writer and producer? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
producer=Eminem / writer=Marshell Mathers
. However in the lead section it would be better saying something like ... "Eminem also wrote and produced the single". You can always check with ASCAP or BMI Repertoire too. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
[talk]
23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is how it always is. Artists/producers are credited by their legal name in writing, proper name in production (i.e. Christopher Stewart is always credited in his legal name in the writers section, but as Tricky Stewart in production). On how to credit, I echo Lil's first statement. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with whether readers know artists' real names or whether it is common practice to use stage names in one instance and given names in another. The fact is that infoboxes are for the most directly accurate data, so in the vast majority of cases what actually appears on the credits of the actual release is what is to be used there. The article text can say that the artist (as commonly known, in the case of Eminem or Lady Gaga, those names, and not their given names) wrote and produced the song even if they were credited under different names for the different aspects, but the infobox must indicate what is officially used. Wikilink the infobox use of the less-familiar name to the artist's bio (presumably under the stage name), and this will serve to educate some readers that they are one and the same.
Incidentally, the reason is that production credits are only relevant from a points structure regarding purchases of the recording, while writing credits are relevant from both the standpoint of purchases and commercial use (airplay, use in nightclubs or other media, etc.). Most recording artists start to copyright their songs under their full legal name before they become known under (or legally change their real name to) a stage name, and continue to use the original name so that accounting and payment of all of their writing/usage royalties will be unified.
However, although this explains why this is generally what happens, there is no editorial rule, as DanielDPeterson infers, that "the writer is the person and producer is stage name". The editorial rule is that we are to use what the official release uses, and someone who doesn't have access to the official release (or have a digital version that does not attribute the credits) should not be editing this aspect of the article. It's about the most reliable usage, and the official hard copy of the release and/or official copyright and/or official Billboard single review formal writer attribution is the source to determine reliable, official usage for the official infobox field. Abrazame ( talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
On a related issue, I think it should be normal (ie unless there are really strong reasons not to - which I can't at the moment imagine what they are) to say who wrote a song and not just attribute it to the person who recorded it. Obvious, perhaps, but easy to miss. And probably very annoying if you wrote the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbax ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Previous Discussions
Notified by -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk]
Over the past month or so, there has been a disagreement on the page for Lady Gaga's " Dance in the Dark" on whether it is a regular single or a promotional single. The discussion is moving towards a deadlock with both sides not giving in. I am asking the community to weigh in on the issue. It would probably be best for those interested to comment here and this discussion should be about promotional single versus single in general, not specifically related to "Dance in the Dark"; that discussion can be had on the article talk page. Instead of summarizing the debate so far in what will probably come out as a biased account favoring my views, please review what we have so far: talk page discussion and definition of a promo single. Grk1011 ( talk) 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Really, the discussion on the page speaks for itself. A few users are trying to make a promotional single something it is not per its definition, and push a consensus that never even happened. People also need to get out of the US/UK mindset when thinking of these things. Just because its the English Wikipedia doesn't mean it revolves around those countries. Single releases happen differently around the world. Regardless, all the points are in the discussion. It would be really helpful if the community could weigh in now. Greekboy ( talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
After doing some investigating using Google Books to comb through Billboard archived editions, all hits for "promotional single" or "promo single" described a promotional single as being a recording sent to radio stations by the label, or handed out to DJs. In some cases the artist even filmed a music video for said promotional single, and other times it did not even make the album cut. None of the hits ever mentioned a promotional single as being classified as something sold commercially, but as something distributed free. These below quotes display that a promotional single and commercial release (single) are something separate:
It clearly is not a promotional recording based on the fact that it was released commercially. Greekboy ( talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If your talking about the UK the answer is Dance in the Dark was a single and not a promotional single. The official chart rules are found at http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-rules/. In the pdf page 8, exclusion 5.2 is says that any Promotional Products are not eligible for inclusion in the charts. As you likely know Dance in the Dark entered the UK charts on the week ending Dec 5, 2009(can be sourced to chart stats and Music Week writeup). No doubt that won't end the argument but thought it useful to at least point of the technical answer to the question from a UK perspective. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
ĈÞЯİŒ 1000 & Candyo32. Please continue the promotional single discussion in my Proposal 2 below & thanks.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the bolding above. I wanted to clearly show my additions and changes there.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this is more complicated than it needs to be. Perhaps we just need a simple defintion...
"A single is a song (sometimes with accompanying B-sides) which is released independently of its parent album. That release can either be through airplay (e.g. a radio add date sourced from FMBQ or MediaBase) or a commercial release through digital download or CD single. Either release is considered valid, providing there is some evidence that the release is independent of the release of its parent album (e.g. a separate listing on digital download websites, separate cover art etc.)."
I believe this would solve all issues as it removes the element of speculation. At the end of the day once a song is released the public generally consider it a single even if the label later decides its not her official single. It would mean that things such as " Raining Men" and " Wait Your Turn" would be considered official releases though... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Songs are released digitally independent of the album everyday, but they are not singles. "iTunes Countdown Singles" to name on kind. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 12:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a pretty excellent start. User:Grk1011 also brought up an interesting point on the DITD talk. I agree with much of what has been written in the proposal. It would be nice to get more input from the community as well though. Greekboy ( talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Adapting from above
"A single is a song (including any accompanying B-sides) which is released (made available for sale) independently of its parent album or EP. That release can be through digital download and/or CD single snd/or any other means. The presence or lack thereof of promotional activity, such as radio adds, cover art, music videos, etc. has no bearing. It is a single based on the virtue of its independent release. However, this does not include iTunes Countdown to album/EP release 'singles' as they are merely album tracks stripped out for pre-sale to the album/EP."
Of course the promotional activity frequently occurs as a means to increase sales, but unnecessary to qualify for the term 'single'.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what this proposal is. Am I missing something here? No doubt in my mind are the songs you listed promotional singles. "Wait Your Turn" was released prior to the release of the album digitally only, while the other songs on the album were sent to radio, that's always been the difference. So what you're saying is that "E.T.", "Circle the Drain" and "Not like the Movies" are singles as well? "Mean" and "Speak Now" as well? ℥ nding· start 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, how about putting it this way:
Terms should be able to be applied across the spectrum and not just be limited to 'singles'. Terms must also allow for items that may not qualify for wiki articles but that do certainly exist.— Iknow23 ( talk) 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I support this proposal as well. All arguments against it are once again original research and if there are sources, they are about other songs then synthesized to support the categorization of a completely different song. As for "Dance in the Dark", I still haven't seen a source calling it a "countdown single", so there is no argument there. Additionally, reliable sources in most cases will almost always allow for there to be room to show some judgment. This proposal seeks to define the general terms. If certain songs mentioned above are special cases so be it, but their special cases shouldn't be used to redefine established industry terms which already have a known meaning. Grk1011 ( talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Right in the promo single article, iTunes and other markets have recently began distributing promotional singles for a price separate from their parent albums. And Grk1011, you and Greekboy seem to not understand what WP:SYNTHESIS is. Synthesis is joining together two sources that state different things about one topic in order to come up with a conclusion that is not mentioned in either sources. The sources on promo single support that iTunes did distribute a promotional single. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(reply to Candyo32) I call a countdown single 'available' instead of released as Lil-unique1 points out that these are only temporary products available for a limited time.
Regarding..."labels would just be like 'play our songs'." No, just random like that will have less effect on the charts, so they request a specific date that they would like all the stations to start playing such-and-such song. This combined effort can possibly generate greater charting success.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
07:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
To my limited knowledge, "Release" is a V-E-R-Y specific industry term, meaning 'available for sale'. It doesn't matter if this is physical and/or digital and/or any other means available now or in the future. It doesn't matter if the item charts or has any sales at all, it is still released as of the Release date.
I believe that Wikipedia should always use correct terminology and use it correctly for any subject matter. Thus if we say 'sent to radio' we have done our job. It doesn't matter if the average reader converts that in their mind to 'released to radio'.
Section headers such as 'Purchasable release' are a redundant term. "Release history' will suffice quite fine. Has anyone ever seen the industry say 'Purchasable release'?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
01:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Release date thus is the first date available for purchase anywhere in the world, not necessarily your country or region. And the item still has been released even if never in your country or region. iTunes Countdown to album/EP programs do not qualify as they are merely album tracks stripped out for pre-sale to their parent album/EP.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
edited to discuss iTunes—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you somewhat. But a radio date still shows a single release. I'm a bit confused about what you mean (still). ℥ nding· start 03:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо's comment) You are saying that Radio add date is a requirement, when you say, "It is a way for a song to be labeled as a single."— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to Iknow23's reply to my comment) No, I am saying such makes a song as single. Why would I say it has to be released to radio to qualify as a single? That makes no sense. It can, but it doesn't have to be. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Alejandro does not depend on US radio to be called a single. It is actually released for sales in other countries. Just to be sure what you mean; EVERY song with a Radio add date IS a single as of that date? It would have to be a general rule that applies to all songs, not only those that really receive airplay or qualify for Wiki articles.— Iknow23 ( talk) 05:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Song samples on pages are typically random lengths. What's the reason for this? Can't we make them a standard 30-seconds? DanielDPeterson ( talk) 03:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I figured this has/d something to do with copyright issues. I was just hoping to be able to switch to a more uniform style of samples. DanielDPeterson ( talk) 16:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
See Table showing productivity/size of the 48 music projects for information about this project and other music groups. -- Klein zach 07:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey songsbods!
I was just putting up a small request for anyone with some spare time and music love! I've just tidied the front page of the notable songs list, and I was hoping to get closer to killing it stone dead. However, a lot of it is far outside my own fields of expertise, and was hoping that some knowledeable souls might be interested in helping get this done.
If I ever pull my finger out, I may even make some sort of prize for being nice helpy types, although I'm newish and haven't tried this before...
Any help would be appreciated! Bennydigital ( talk) 10:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In the 1986 Tony Scott's film Top Gun, Tom Cruise and Anthony Edwards sang it at the Aviators Club in Miramar to Kelly McGillis the day before the Top Gun program starts, "Maverick", assisted by "Goose", unsuccessfully approaches a girl by singing this classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.152.136.142 ( talk) 09:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What can be done with this page? It has been around 2004, but it's an orphan and hasn't really improved. Peter Moulton ( talk) 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The article One Day at a Time (Em's Version) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
10:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if this is isn't the appropriate place to discuss this but I'm new to WP:WikiProject Songs. I'm in the process of updating the singles for Hole, PJ Harvey and Imelda May and I'm familiar with how to submit an album's page for assessment, I done so with Imelda May's Mayhem but I'm confused on how to do it with song pages. I recently created/wrote the page for PJ Harvey's " The Words That Maketh Murder and spent a lot of time writing the article to meet Good Article criteria, basing it on Nirvana's " Heart-Shaped Box." Could someone inform me how to go about submitting a song's page for asssessment or even more helpfully, could someone, who has the authority to do so, assess the article? It'd be much appreciated! - Idiotchalk ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that an article for a song should be a significant hit on at least one music chart, where do we draw the line on what constitutes a significant hit? Top 10, top 20, top 40? I would imagine anything below this (on only one chart) wouldn't be significant enough. But perhaps it's time to consider where the line should be drawn - or perhaps it could relate also to number of weeks on the chart? -- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (Note- This post also has been included on the Notability (music) talkpage).
I have nominated Adam and Evil for deletion as a non-notable Elvis Presley song, but Blofeld thinks every Elvis song deserves an article, even if it means creating a one sentence stub that provides zero information and offers zero sources and the song was nothing more than an album cut. Do articles such as A House That Has Everything need to exist. I suggest redirecting until they can be expanded, if they can, but I figured I'd leave it in more knowledgable hands. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor is claiming that his addition of a "synopsis" section to One Mic should be kept as he "derived the synopsis from viewing the video". Is this valid? Or should he have used the Template:Cite video? Dan56 ( talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Writing what happened from watching the video is not WP:OR. Its a synopsis which wikipedia allows. Many film and TV articles have reached GA and FA with that. However it is conceivable that it would be best practise to cite the video but other than that there is no major issue here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The Hung Medien site currently provides a chart which combines the physical and the digital markets for albums and singles (the first edition of this "new" chart was that of the 29 January 2011, which explains the high number of entries and big drops that week). However, this chart seems to be unofficial: the site of the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique continues to publish the physical chart and the digital chart separately. There is nothing about the chart displayed on Hung Medien. So, on WP, which is considered as the "official" number one single of the chart edition of 19 March 2011: On the Floor (Hung Medien) or " Celui" (SNEP)? PS: Sorry for my bad English... Europe22 ( talk) 20:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Had a question related to the Razor's Edge song page. There is also a song and album by AC/DC called Razor's Edge that was relatively popular in the US at least. Is there any thoughts about adding that info to the Razor's Edge (song) page as a second topic/subject. Coppermallow ( talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Using ASCAP I've listed the credits for " On the Floor" by Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull. Most sources from news sites etc. have said that RedOne produced the song. Last week Billboard published a review of the song where they named the producers of the song as RedOne and Kuk Harrell. Harrell is known as vocal producer mainly but I've noticed that it is not common practise to list vocal producers alongside music producers. Am I right to omitt Harrell's name from the infobox on the basis that only one source mentions him? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
New issue... Musicnotes.com and The CD cover at Brave.de ( here) both list Teddy Sky as a writer, ASCAP doesn't list Sky, but does list another person, Geraldo Sindell. What to do in this situation? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
i read about 3 or 4 weeks ago that it has sold about 2.5 million in US and now probably it has reached 3 million and it shoud be confirmed on the certifications of US of the page!!! or whenever it reached please confirm it ASAP!!
thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.158.95 ( talk) 10:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.— Kww( talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
What kind of software can I use to create song clips? Can I use Audacity?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
We have had many discussions regarding 'Radio only' singles that do not have independent sales from a parent project available. I see the use of infobox single in these circumstances as trying to fit a large square into a small circle. This does not really fit as infobox single field is called 'Release' and not 'Radio date'. 'Release' means sales per the industry usage. I could support an infobox Radio single and article text using correct terminology of not calling Radio a "Release". I know we have been calling these 'Radio singles', the qualifier 'Radio' removes the sales requirement.
Does anyone really know if the industry would support this?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Standard singles have true release dates (independent sales...). That is why we have been calling the hybrid a 'radio single' to disambiguate it. I am always a bit confused (and maybe bemused) whenever I see such as at
Take It Off (song), "It was released as the fourth official single from the album on July 13, 2010." not agreeing that Radio date = Release (which is independent sales date) The quote is
WP:WEASEL is it not? What does that really mean? Does it mean that there are also UNoffical singles from the album prior to this single? Why not just say "It is the fourth single" period? I have seen other language such as "serves as the xxth single from album". To me that means that the writer (editor) is 'reaching' or 'stretching' attempting to convince others that it is so when it is in dispute! I consider "serves as" meaning it isn't really, but the editor wants us to think so. Should just clearly state either it is a single or it isn't (or what type of single perhaps).
Thank you for mentioning Remixes as I was just about to mention those. With the advent of the often several remixes being made, whenever they are sold independently of a parent project...the song has then been 'released' as a single, even if the radio or album version has not been previously. This is because we have articles on 'songs' and not every separate version thereof. The article should be titled with only the 'song' (single) title and not include the remix version(s) that are sold in the article title. However in the article itself ALL versions of the song (single) are to be described as we see in Track listings. Radio add dates can be mentioned of the various versions that have one. And 'release dates' should be detailed and properly attributed to those versions that have that as well.
I recognize in this section header that the industry must prevail "Radio single if the industry would support this." However the industry does NOT support calling Radio dates a 'release' either, so how can we? They go through great pains to avoid it, which is why I strive to do the same. They call it "Radio add date", "going for adds" etc but NOT 'release'.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, what do you want to do. The infobox radio single proposal is dead(?), so what would you like to change? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) i think the main concern here is what defines a single? By wikipedia's old approach a single was released for purchase separate from an album and promoted that way. Now in the digital age individual songs can be purchased as a component track of an album effectively quashing the old theory. Equally labels are seemingly sending songs to radio without clarifying the purpose of doing so. My understanding is that labels have to pay to send songs to radio and so would only do so if they wanted it as a single. Equally iTunes often removes singles after the album's release as it unnecessarily increases the size of their database. Sometimes Amazon and 7Digital retain the separate digital releases. I thus concur that the solution might be to consider radio and digital releases as one in the same. Either way the label has to pay to get the song out there and the only reason for doing so is the wish to see it chart and generate its own revenue stream... we have a one size fits all policy here and so instead of adding an infobox type perhaps removing the distinction from single and song is best. One simple 'song' infobox might serve the purpose better. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok so if a song is only released in one territory but only receives a radio add, the label promotes it as a single (e.g. a press release or interview mentioning the song's release as a single) then what do you call that song? a single? or something else? what do you actually propose calling a song which is only sent to radio? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
What about:
New thought...due to singles chronology order may need to state BOTH dates if Radio is first.
'Impacted' on April 10, 2011 as the third single from DEF's third album, GHI and was released on May 1, 2011.
In such case I would want to see both listed in the infobox, the radio date being notable as this is the date we are using to call it a single [with (Radio) indicated after the date] and a br to a next line to report the 'release' date. Since the field is actually titled 'Release' we need to report that date there.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hang on, why? If we have already determined that radio is a form of release, why do we need two separate dates? That's pointless. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the infobox needs modifying to add radio date field? (i thought i'd throw it out there) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
“ | When a song's radio impact date comes before the song's digital download and/or CD single release date, place radio dates in the 'radio add date' field, and purchase dates in the 'release date' field. If a song only receives a radio add date, use only the 'radio add date' field. If a song is released before its radio add date then the 'release date' field should be used and the 'radio add date' field should be left blank. | ” |
Feel free to modify the suggestion as required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(→) Iknow... already listed a proposal while i was typing LOL. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright those answer the single's field, what about the album's field? Which date is to be used first? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict):(CK)Lakeshade - You would have to bring that up now, LOL. I was hoping to resolve this portion first before tackling that...but since you brought it up...need to add a 'Radio date' field for the singles chrono listings on album pages as well. I would just use the Radio date when FIRST as this is what created it as a single and determines its placement within the chrono.— Iknow23 ( talk) 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
By revising the Infobox single template to add a field parameter, look at "Radio" and "Released" below:
{{Infobox single <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs --> | Name = | Cover = <!-- just the file name --> | Border = | Alt = | Caption = | Artist = | Album = | A-side = | B-side = | Radio = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ONLY USE when there is ONLY an OFFICIAL Radio date [(no release (Sales) date at all], or the OFFICIAL Radio date is prior to the Release date. --> | Released = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ALWAYS USE when there is a 'Release' (sales) date, even if later than an OFFICIAL Radio date. --> | Format = | Recorded = | Genre = | Length = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} --> | Label = | Writer = | Producer = | Certification = | Chronology = | Last single = | This single = | Next single = | Misc = }}
— Iknow23 ( talk) 05:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Iknow23 is right in making the encyclopedic distinction between actual single releases and radio songs. I think the way he suggests handling it in the revised infobox template above is a simple, subtle way of doing so. It adds value and is explained in a way that competent editors should have no problem with. The only alteration I would suggest is to highlight the difference by framing the box in a different color, much in the way we have seen fit to frame studio albums in blue, live albums in brown, greatest hits albums in green, and soundtrack albums in grey, despite the fact that they all share the same commercial availability. We already use distinct colors to discern between a song that stands on its own in the marketplace as a distinct commercial product unto itself and one that does not, in that we use yellow for commercial singles and pale blue for album tracks. I propose we either use the album track pale blue for radio-only songs (as album tracks have long been promoed to rock radio, for example) or devise a distinct color (a combination of the two, pale green?) for promo-only songs (regardless of what media they are transferred to radio on). Abrazame ( talk) 09:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)