Talk:Spotify/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cost

"As of 2013, Spotify offered a US$9 per month unlimited subscription package ... In Denmark, for example, the cost is DKK49 (US$9.00) per month (as of 8 December 2013) for an unlimited subscription."

Why only the US and Danish price? This costs £10 in the UK, ie $15. (This is the same Rip-off Britain trick Wikipedia used recently when it asked US uses to donate $3 and UK users to donate £3.) QuentinUK (talk)

"Spottan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Spottan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 5#Spottan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of appropriate screenshot using WP:NFCC#4

I have uploaded a low-resolution screenshot of the Windows 10 Spotify app with a generic account "spotifyuser". I am unsure of the correct way to add the image to the infobox.

The screenshot has been uploaded at Spotify_screenshot_08-06-2020.jpg following WP:NFCC#4.

Ptwinters (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Spotify logo with text.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Spotify logo with text.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Page protection?

Some people are targeting this page for vandalism because of recent issues with spotify in Korea. Can we restrict editing to confirmed users only? Finnybug (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Finnybug,  Done by ToBeFree. In future, go to WP:RPP to request page protection. --Belwine (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Free Loona 2021 they need their paycheck pls Freeloona (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Belwine (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Re collapsing tables

Hey KamramMackey, just wanted to leave a note about the recent addition of collapsing tables. Per MOS:DONTHIDE, article content should not be hidden/collapsed by default. I've also added {{Formatting}} to the availability section for this reason, and also because we shouldn't be using the flags in there per MOS:FLAG. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Swedish

please change ((Swedish)) to ((Sweden|Swedish)) 2601:541:4580:8500:ED87:5257:2385:E745 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Kakao M and Spotify Conflict and Resolution

Hey, I notice nobody has added anything about the Kakao M and Spotify conflict on this article. I'm planning on adding this to the article, especially because Spotify has come out with a statement on the matter. Here's the source Juleesquared (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Juleesquared! I don't think there is anything outstandingly important in this specific dispute - content disputes are nothing new in the music industry. Instead, I think we should be merging all the separate mentions about content disputes and resolutions into one master section (maybe under Business ,odel > Industry relations), and just mentioning them like this: Spotify has been involved in a number of disputes with record labels surrounding financial deals for access to signed artists' music. Labels such as Kakao Entertainment, ...., have previously removed content from the platform, citing failed negotiations with Spotify. etc. Thoughts? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsPugle:Yes! this sounds good. How about: Spotify has been involved in a number of disputes with record labels surrounding financial deals for access to signed artists' music. Labels such as Kakao Entertainment and Tidal have previously removed content from the platform, citing failed negotiations with Spotify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleesquared (talk • contribs) 00:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Adding Artist Features in Features Section

I believe that the features more geared towards artists should be included in the short paragraphs that talk about user facing features and updates. Examples of this would be the Marquee feature (full page advertisements) that is recently being rolled out to more creators and Canvas which allows a short clip to play behind songs. These could be cited from the Spotify for Artists page or articles about the features releases.

Koalalaugher (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Koalalaugher: I'm thinking that it's probably best to actually create a new article, Spotify for Artists, that has all artist related stuff. Also, just a note, but it'd be good to maybe get a secondary source if possible (although SfA isn't really unreliable). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Where the hell is PlayStation music on here

Why is it not on here Yowwwk7391 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yowwwk7391: Hey! Since PlayStation Music is such a small part of the Spotify ecosystem, I don't think it has its own section etc. That being said, if we're missing a lot of notable things, feel free to create a subsection under Platforms. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Industry Relations to History > other developments

Change Other Developments to include a tab called Industry Relations which contains Spotify has been involved in a number of disputes with record labels surrounding financial deals for access to signed artists' music. Labels such as Kakao Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and Tidal have previously removed content from the platform, citing failed negotiations with Spotify.

I’m afraid your proposed edit is not comprehensive enough to warrant a sub-section. Please feel free to edit your proposed text in your original request, for other editors to enrich and review. Ferkijel (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

French Guiana

The following discussion 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.

---

Is there spotify in French Guiana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eray08yigit (talk • contribs) 09:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

Proposed Spotify Awards Section

Spotify Award by D'Argenta In 2020 for the first time, Spotify launched the Spotify Awards to recognize the artists most listened to by fans. Artists such as J Balvin, Bad Bunny, Banda MS, Julieta Venegas, Christian Nodal, Zoé, Los Ángeles Azules and Cazzu were invited. These awards reflect what users download from the internet and listen to, according to preference, customs and culture.

There are 12 main categories and they are emphatically focused on Mexican and Latin American artists, driven by Spotify’s data on streams, follows and playlist adds in the region. The Mexico focus is clear: the ‘Spotify Artist of the Year’ category was based on data from Mexican Spotify listeners. On top of those 12 categories, there will be 50 more categories that won’t be broadcast, and they really are granular. ‘Most-Streamed Song on Mexican Independence Day’; ‘Most-Streamed Male / Female Artist in Gaming Consoles’; ‘Most-Streamed Mariachi Artist’; ‘Most-Added to LGBTQIA+ Playlists Artists’ and so on, plus dedicated K-Pop categories.

Spotify first touched down on Mexico in 2013, since then Mexico City has become the music streaming capital of the world. The capital city boasts the most listeners on Spotify globally, with more listeners than New York City, London and Paris. “Thanks to streaming and the true audience size of Mexico, users are in the front seat like never before. We decided to celebrate this by recognizing what users love based entirely on their listening." Mia Nygren Managing Director of Spotify Latin America, said.[163]

The prize is a silver monolithic sculpture with the Spotify logo on the corner, it was commissioned to the Mexican company D'Argenta.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsyst (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Artsyst, your constant spamming of your family's business should have gotten you blocked by now. You are clearly not here to make an encyclopedia. Please desist.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Criticism of Spotify into Spotify#Criticism

The following discussion 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.

---

Criticism of Spotify is really nothing but a attack page, evident through it's nonexistant balance and no mentions or representations of Spotify's responses to the vast majority of claims. There is also instances of original research that presents personal statements and opinions of Spotify staff from personal social media pages as though company policy or statements. Although I think that the article could probably just be deleted outright, it might be worth merging a few key 'issues' into this master article, and balancing them out. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I don't believe Criticism of Spotify should be merged with the Spotify page. It is a large page, and the information in it would create a bulky section that would not fit well with the rest of the Spotify page. Whilst the Criticism of Spotify page is certainly imperfect, and could use improvement, it goes into detail that would not fit on a summary page. We need more detailed pages to keep the summary pages from being too full and difficult to navigate, with information likely unnecessary for the average reader. Penumbra01 (please ping on reply) 16:11, 07 November 2020 (UTC)

@Penumbra01: Merging doesn't mean copy-pasting the entire article. For the largest part, most things in Criticism of Spotify are extraneous and not concise. Having one section with likely three or four subsections (with no more than one or two paragraphs in each) is not too long really. Also, I don't know what you mean by "summary page" - Spotify is not a "summary page", it's a article page used to convey information.

I also don't have any faith that the page will be readily improved. I don't have enough energy or time to improve it myself, and its had a point of view template on it for almost three years. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose merge as it seems that a suitable WP:SUMMARY form is in place; as all commenters note, what is needed is improvement, including removal of POV and OR. Klbrain (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that after you remove all inappropriate and irrelevant material, you're left with maybe two or three paragraphs. Most of the commentary on Criticism of Spotify is around artist pay-outs/IR which can be condensed into one paragraph, all the policy stuff can be put into another once your remove the opinions, and we can have another sentence or two about Drake's Scorpion SZN promotion. Stuff like it not having certain features is commentary/opinion/garbage and not actual sourced criticism. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge salvageable elements. I agree with ItsPugle's assessment that the Criticism of Spotify page is poor, and I share the pessimism about its chances of improvement. I favor a WP:TNT approach. Popcornfud (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge I agree that the article is out of proportion to the substance of the criticism. There are maybe a few interesting key points that can be extracted and merged into the main article introducing some subsections there. PassioEtDesiderium (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose I believe the page should be worked on first, and then merged iff the result is too small to justify its own page. --Trougnouf (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

Spotify Kids

https://spotify-kids.fandom.com/wiki/Spotify_Kids This app exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trangmai150809 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

privacy policy change in 2021

Spotify changed the share listening activity to most of its users to off as part of a new privacy update implemented in November 2021 that caused a major backlash from the users in the Spotify community

Joe Rogan controversy

It should be in the introduction section. Agree/disagree? JSFarman (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - perhaps reduce the Rogan affair to one or two paragraphs; just saying. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Spotify expands into audiobooks

On September 20th, 2022 Spotify launched its audiobook service, offering more than 300,000 titles on a pay-per-book model. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/books/spotify-audiobooks.html Prebiula (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

The percentage of artists paid above $50k is calculated wrong. 13,000 is 0.19% of 7,000,000, not .0019%. 67.170.164.183 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

hello 194.249.94.167 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wobuaichifan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wobuaichifan (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Spotify into Spotify. "Criticism of Spotify" is arguably biased, and the merger is supported by the fact that WP:CRITS states "Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged". Tbf69 14:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, there is signficant coverage of criticism against Spotify, and though the article may contain biased language, it can be cleaned up without resorting to an unnecessary merge. Theknine2 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRITS - "Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged" --Tbf69 12:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Support per WP:CRITS and the fact that splitting articles is generally not a great strategy. Popcornfud (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose article has enough media coverage to keep it separate. War Wounded (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRITS - "Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged" --Tbf69 12:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We can refer to WP:CORG, though. Adding the content of the spin-off into the main article would extend it substantially and thus put undue weight on the "Reception" section, which would also be overwhelmed with content pertaining to criticisms. Keeping it as a separate article with careful wording could be an easier way to achieve WP:NPOV in regards to the critiques leveled against the company. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure controversy sections within articles are even more reviled, as @ASpacemanFalls hinted. Crusader1096 (message) 15:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"Reviled"? They seem a standard WP feature, and a natural counterpart to an Accolades section. It's all part of a subject's history. This may be a long shot (and I pre-apologize if I'm being out of left field), but could some general aversion to disapproval be in play here? – AndyFielding (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally, "controversy" sections should be avoided. See WP:CRITS. Popcornfud (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Intro addition

@Wobuaichifan: I think your addition has merit, but wouldn't say it belongs in the intro. The criticism is extensively covered down in the article, so it may be better to add the bit about artists who support Spotify's model there, perhaps even extended with some quotes and prominent examples. For the intro, though, it's not essential to mention, I'd say. What do you think? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)