Jump to content

Talk:Sleigh Bells discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent edit

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was singles and music videos are two different things.
  1. I do not see how WP:BOLDTITLE applies because mention of the title doesn't sound right in the first sentence as is (if you can rework it though, more power to you).
  2. The sources I listed clearly state that the songs I listed are all singles.
  3. I do not see why a non-album single should have its own section.

All in all, if a few things seem out of place still, well, that's why the article has an {{underconstruction}} tag (and just for the record, I am not trying to own the article.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The long-ago established consensus was not to bold the article's title in the lead of a discography article. This practice has been carried out in numerous, if not all, featured discography articles such as Audioslave discography and Faith No More discography.
  2. You have not listed any sources claiming these songs are singles, and it's kind of bizarre to claim that you have. Please read Wikipedia's article Single (music), which clearly outlines and defines what a single is. It's a type of release that can be obtained independent of the parent album (if a parent album even exists). For example, here is where I can obtain the single for "Comeback Kid" and here is where I can obtain the single for "Tell 'Em". Where can I obtain the single for "Demons" or "End of the Line"? I don't see any physical or digital copies of any of the songs that you're adding, though Discogs (not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, but is generally a good place to start) does show radio-promo copies of "Infinity Guitars", "Rill Rill" and "Riot Rhythm".
  3. (A) "Irreplaceable" was not released as a single, and (B) it's common practice to separate out songs not released on an album by the band. For examples from featured discography articles, see Foo Fighters discography#Other appearances, Nine Inch Nails discography#Miscellaneous, Linkin Park discography#Other appearances and Smoking Popes discography#Other appearances.
  4. Your "slight revert" also: changes the number of singles to 8 when there are 7 listed, but only 2 are truly singles; changes Gregory Kohn incorrectly back to Gregory Horn; incorrectly reintroduces a source that doesn't even mention Gregory Kohn, yet is being used to source the claim that he was the director for "Comeback Kid". Fezmar9 (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I added a source that clearly states that "Comeback Kid" was the official first single and that it was co-directed by Gregory Kohn (which you could have easily obtained from the "Comeback Kid" article, btw). Speaking of that, the "Demons" article has the actual single listed; and as for your suggestion to look at Single (music), that article hardly has any sources, so I don't really know how reliable that is. Also...
Is that a guideline though? If so, where is it? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I just don't see why you're making a big deal about this. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nothing you're saying makes any logical sense to me anymore. When you say "which you could have easily obtained from the "Comeback Kid" article," that's exactly what I did. With this edit I took the exact same Stereogum story from the exact same article you did. You really need to be more careful when you mass revert someone's edits.
  2. The article Demons (Sleigh Bells song) only states the song is a single because you're the only person who has edited the article. None of the four sources on that article call it a single. You also removed my notability tag there with no reason provided.
  3. Speaking of removing something with no reason provided, you also removed all of the citation needed tags from this article. These songs were not released as singles as far as I can see. Above you said you already provided sources, but I sure don't see any. Now I'm challenging the information and requesting that sources be provided. If none can, the information will be removed.
  4. I'm making a big deal about this because you are listing songs that are not singles as singles. It's about as intelligent as listing these songs as bananas. They're clearly not bananas, so they should not be listed as such. It shouldn't matter if there's a guideline (which there is) nor should it matter if Single (music) is lacking sources (it's linked in all single infoboxes and used in discussions to define a single, clearly its validity is supported by the community), I have provided more than adequate amounts of reasons for why this should not be.
  5. I know that above you said you're not trying to own the article, but by reverting all of my edits without giving a reason or by completely avoiding the subject in conversation, you're behaving in a way that's similar to owning the article. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....? Most of your edit summaries either say "oops" or "see talk page," but the talk page doesn't have any supporting explanations. For example, you removed the notability tag from the Demons article with a summary of See Talk:Sleigh Bells discography#Recent edit, but I don't see anywhere in this discussion where you state why the tag was removed. When you removed the citation needed tags from this article, you provided no edit summary, nor is there an explanation in this discussion. You added a category to this article with an edit summary of See talk page, but there's not a single mention of categories anywhere in this discussion. WP:IDHT is completely irrelevant since it pertains to consensus, not edit summaries. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Hi. It looks like there are several questions here.
  • First on the Bold Title: I don't think anything needs to be bold in the lede here. It's silly to bold " discography of the band" just to have something bolded, that doesn't add anything to the article. So my recommendation there is to just not bold anything.
  • On what constitutes a single: These days, with digital promotional releases and such, the definition of single is not as straightforward as it once was. A single needs to have been published independently to the general public, and in my mind, needs to have been marketed as a separate product in some capacity. I don't know if we necessarily need a source to declare that it was a single, but if none at all can be located, then that is a very good hint that it was not a single in any meaningful sense.
  • Consider whether it's even worth arguing over what to label something. If there was a single-like release that might not have been a fully fledged single, just note that in the article text. Tell the reader what the deal actually was, instead of trying to judge what to call something that secondary sources may not even have commented on one way or another. It's not our job to categorize the entire world, we can just tell people how something was and let them decide what to call it.
  • Concentrate on the content, accusations of article ownership and conduct problems are generally counterproductive. Instead of throwing policies around, talk about why the content was added, and the thought processes behind it. Our guidelines are not magic spells to throw around, ultimately its up to us editors to decide what they mean, so listen to each other and only use the guidelines as input to guide you, not to try to shut down the other party. Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except we're back at square one again with the singles issue. Gigs' definition of a single, which seems consistent with both the definition I gave above (albeit a more modern version) and the definition at Single (music), would not include "Infinity Guitars", "Rill Rill", "Demons" or "End of the Line". None of these songs were "published independently to the general public, and in my mind, needs to have been marketed as a separate product in some capacity." This is why the citation needed tags were added to the article—because even though I'm very familiar with the band, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt to uncover some sort of evidence that these songs were released as singles that I had not yet seen. But as Gigs points out, if no sources can be provided (even though they shouldn't be required), it's "a very good hint that it was not a single in any meaningful sense." And now that I've had some time to think about it, I believe "Irreplaceable" should be removed entirely (and not moved to an "other appearances" section as I previously suggested) since it was recorded for a radio program but never officially released to the public, so it's really not part of Sleigh Bells' discography at all. Gigs mentions the phrase "single-like" that wasn't very well defined, but Erpert, how would you say that "Infinity Guitars", "Rill Rill", "Demons" or "End of the Line" are like a single? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if that distinction is 100% true, simply because video single doesn't have any sources (and it doesn't mention that distinction anyway; nor does music video, for that matter). Basically, if you think I'm wrong about music video and single being comparable, find a source that proves it and then add it; simple as that. I'm not trying to make this a battle, but you're dragging this on farther than it should be. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 22:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help if you both made a list of each disputed track, the nature of its release, and any sources to back up the claims (if they exist). If you all don't disagree on the facts regarding the release, then the sources aren't as immediately important (though always desirable). Also don't ignore my general recommendation that we don't necessarily need to arbitrate what was or wasn't a single, we have the freedom to add prose explaining the actual nature of the release and let the reader decide whether they want to call it a single or not. The infobox can contain something like "2 (see article for details)", if it turns out to be difficult to pigeonhole things. Going back and forth saying "Is not, is so" isn't going to resolve this though, it'll just turn into a contest of who gives up first, and that's never a good thing. Gigs (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that; in fact, I thought that's where we were. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to remove myself from this discussion for a few days because I found it to be horribly frustrating. I have been exclusively editing music-related articles (bands, albums, singles, band members, etc.) for over five years now. In that time I've never had this much trouble explaining what a single is; the argument has always been axiomatic and never required outside sources to help define. I've also never heard of "single-like" as being an acceptable inclusion. Confusing singles with music videos comes up a lot, however a single can be a single without having a corresponding music video, and likewise, a music video can be a music video without having a corresponding single. It happens all the time. But generally when having this discussion with an editor, it's usually short and sweet and met with an "oh, I get it now" fairly quickly. If it drags on longer than it should, another editor from the music community of Wikipedia will jump in and provide support. Seeing as how this is a brand new article with zero watchers, and Sleigh Bells itself doesn't have many regular editors, I don't think anyone will be chiming in with support.
The other frustrating thing is that, even though the music community universally applies this maxim, I can't find any discussion establishing it as a consensus nor can I find any guideline or policy to support my argument here. All of this is a far more civil and politely worded version of something I wrote two days ago but didn't submit. Like I said, I've been very frustrated.
Now, moving forward I'm interested to see how this list-method solution might work. Though this probably wasn't exactly what Gigs had in mind, but I've made a list of every recorded Sleigh Bells song and made columns for each of us to provide some sort of evidence as to why any of these songs might be a single. In the time since my last comment I've discovered international releases of "Riot Rhythm" (not previously mentioned in this discussion) and "Infinity Guitars" as singles by searching international versions of iTunes and Amazon. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Album Song Fezmar9's evidence of a single Erpert's evidence of a single
Sleigh Bells "Ring Ring"
"Crown on the Ground"
"Beach Girls"
"Infinity Guitars"
"A/B Machines"
"Holly"
"2HELLWU"
Treats "Tell 'Em" [1][2]
"Kids"
"Riot Rhythm" [3][4]
"Infinity Guitars" [5][6]
"Run the Heart"
"Rachel"
"Rill Rill"
"Crown on the Ground"
"Straight A's"
"A/B Machines"
"Treats"
Reign of Terror "True Shred Guitar"
"Born to Lose"
"Crush"
"End of the Line"
"Leader of the Pack"
"Comeback Kid" [7][8]
"Demons"
"Road to Hell"
"You Lost Me"
"Never Say Die"
"D.O.A."
Other "Irreplaceable"
With all due respect, this is getting rather pointy. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT pertains to editors making edits to articles that he does not actually agree with to illustrate a point, and instead encourages talk page discussion to avoid further disruption. I have not edited this article in 8 days, I am engaging in talk page discussions and none of my edits were disruptive nor where they something I didn't believe in just to illustrate a point. According to WP:NOTPOINTY, "just because someone is making a point does not mean that s/he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it." What would constitute as being "pointy" would be, out of frustration that this discussion seems to suggest it's okay to call a song that wasn't released as a single a single, start listing songs like "Crush" and "Treats" in the singles list just to illustrate a point that it doesn't make much sense to list songs that were not released as singles. The list idea originated from the editor who stepped in as a third opinion as a way to move the argument forward in a constructive manor. The idea to involve a third opinion was your idea. If you don't like the way this is going, then please either provide an alternate solution. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're the one that doesn't seem to like the way this is going. Here's an example...if I take a disagreement to WP:3 and then the editor that provides the third opinion does so in the other person's favor, I'll admit I get frustrated, but you know what? I move on. It seems like it's very hard for you to do that in this case (although, granted, Gigs didn't agree with me 100%). Frankly, it's ridiculous that this discussion is still going on long after the third opinion was given. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problem with Gigs' third-party input. With an exception for his use of the phrase "single-like," Gigs' initial response was right on par with everything I was saying before he so boldly jumped in to this argument. What I don't like is his input was either misinterpreted or flat out ignored. What I don't like is that this discussion could have ended a long time ago with either the ability or inability to provide supporting sources. What I don't like is that you're not participating in Gigs' list solution which I started above. So do I like the way this discussion is going? Not at all. But please don't for a second believe I don't like this discussion because "the editor that provides the third opinion does so in the other person's favor"—that's just plain false. Please either constructively contribute to the table, or request a new third opinion. Otherwise this discussion may never end. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I have been reaching out to various WikiProjects in hopes of getting someone more familiar with what defines a single to comment on this discussion. I finally received a response from Michig at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. He says, "Generally speaking I would say that a track needs to be released for sale as the lead track from a single to be considered 'a single'. There are of course promotional-only singles, and individual tracks pushed by record companies to promote albums, but these should be treated differently. Non-physical releases muddy the water somewhat but not every track that has an associated video is a single." Fezmar9 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't participate in the list because the information I added is already sourced. And I understand what Michig said, but there still has been no source provided that differentiates between music video and single. And ask for another third opinion? Sorry, I don't canvass. In fact, you asking for another opinion on the Discographies WikiProject after Gigs' third opinion was given looks like you were canvassing. Thus, if this discussion doesn't end, it'll be because of you. What's with you, anyway? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would make for the second or third guideline you've used incorrectly so far. According to WP:CANVASS, leaving a neutrally worded message on relevant project pages is perfectly appropriate. By requesting a source that differentiates music video and single, this presupposes: that you're under the impression these are the same things, that this is a fact, that this is widely accepted and that I am being absurd in proposing that they are different. However, I disagree with this, Michig from the Discography Project disagrees with this, Gigs doesn't appear to support this, the Wiki article Single (music) doesn't support this, the Wiki article music video doesn't support this and this practice isn't carried out in any of Wikipedia's FA discography articles. As far as I can see, you are the only person on Wikipedia holding the view that music videos and singles are one and the same. It would appear that you're misplacing the burden of evidence on me. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this somewhat interesting Link. Radio date = Single creation in some cases per consensus at WT:SONG but it is not called 'Release'. It's really 'sent to radio', 'impacting radio', etc but NOT 'released' to Radio because the industry does NOT call it that.—99.186.119.110 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. While the subject of the archived discussion you provided isn't exactly relevant here since none of Sleigh Bells' songs received airplay (that I can see), the content of the discussion you have provided does demonstrate that many (if not all, I only skimmed the discussion) Wikipedia editors are aware that a single must be able to be purchased or downloaded in a physical or digital medium. I was especially interested to see the following comment from Iknow23: "Singles, songs are audio only and do NOT require a video. A video is a related but separate product." No objections were made to this comment. Fezmar9 (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. *smile* You got my point. Yes, I realized the subject was different, but that the content may still be of interest. I would go further on the quote you provided to say that although videos are common with singles, they are NOT required to 'make' a song a single. Thus if a video exists, it does not 'automatically' MAKE a song into a 'single'. It depends on the other 'required' factors being present or not.—99.186.119.110 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
On September 25, 2012, I took this issue to WP:DRN. The discussion was closed on October 2, 2012 with the closing admin noting that the wide consensus is music videos and singles are two different things. Belief that these two things are one and the same was said in the discussion to boarder on a fringe theory. I will come back and link the DRN discussion as soon as it's archived. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DRN is now archived at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 49#Talk:Sleigh Bells discography. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sleigh_Bells_discography&oldid=1203543749"