Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Category: <Artist> Songs

Apologies if this was talked about above, but I just recently saw someone add Category: Barbra Streisand songs to an article about a song, and I notice that the category is a list of probably everything she's ever recorded. This seems to me to not only be overly excessive, but also would get utterly rediculous if every artist -- even just more major ones -- were listed. I can just imagines songs such as Summertime and Yesterday which have recordings numbering in the 3000s. Both of them alreayd have SOME artist categories listed, but if it were to continue, well I can't imagine ANYONE would agree that any article needs 100 categories. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the version is not notable enough to be including in the text with references then delete the superfluous categories. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured artist showing song as single in their chronology when they didn't release it as a single.

Related to prior discussion but like from the other side, 'featured artist' page.

SEE Tik Tok (song) page > Kesha singles chronology > "Right Round" (2009)
But this song was not released by Kesha as a single. This appears to be misleading and I OPPOSE it.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Right Round is NOT a Kesha single, specifically she is not even credited on the single. What next? Katy Perry's session work listed as her "singles?" BTW, I think this is not the same as the discussion above. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

NB The article has been edited twice since, this is the Tik Tok old version that Iknow23 is referring to. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So then why should "Telephone" be listed in "Beyonce singles chronology"? An editor 'claiming' that it is a 'single' by the 'Featured artist'? huh? There is usually recognition in navboxes that there is a difference as it is not shown purely as a single because of an added 'group' section "Featured singles". It is appropriate there as it is shown correctly as being 'featured'. So the infobox appearances also need to be consistent with this 'recognized' difference and not report it as a 'single'. I also do not support the creation of Category: singles featuring Beyonce or a "Beyoncé featured singles chronology" Bold for emphasis only.—Iknow23 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the Right Round article says, quite specifically, "... its hook, sung by Kesha, who did not receive billing on music charts for her contribution at the request of Atlantic.... Therefore Kesha is not a credited artist, therefore it cannot be "her single" whereas in the Telephone example Beyonce is specifically credited. It's not me you have to convince, but it's the 100s of other editors who are putting 2 artists in for joint/featured releases - you have a real uphill struggle to convince those people, IOW you have to convince me you can convince all those other people! LOL --Richhoncho (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but I think like Grk1011/Stephen that they are all wrong. It is inaccurate and misleading. Common sense tells me that for a song to be a 'single' of the artist it needs to be on 'their' album and released by them, or if not on their album AT LEAST released by them.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kesha was a featured artist just as Beyonce was. The fact that Beyonce was paid does not change the classification of the song as a single. A single is basically a song from the artist album released to radios, etc as promotion. Other than lending her vocals, Beyonce did not do anything else. Is she promoting Lady Gaga's album as well? No. It truly is misleading. A guideline will be created based on consensus, not numbers. Last time I checked consensus was based upon the merits of the arguments not the fear of editors who might disagree because they like to see their favorite artist's name on as many pages as possible. I replied in the related section above as well. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

^ "they like to see their favorite artist's name on as many pages as possible." < You have a much better way to phrase it than my 'harsh' statement in the other section.
Also Atlantic may 'change their tune' now that Kesha is known. They probably didn't want to give her a 'free ride' ['free publicity' to a virtual unknown (back then)] on their 'dime'.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, let's look at a recording contract. An artist signs an exclusive deal to provide a specific number of songs/singles/albums in a specific period of time with a record label for an amount of money ("an advance"). I won't even mention "cross-collatorization". The record label releases the song(s) providing they are happy with the material supplied. That exclusivity would ban the artist from making anything available on any other label (with or without credit) because it dilutes the income of the record label who provided the contract. Therefore any "featured artist" status not only has the permission of the artist, but their record company as well - which means, as in this case, it is a single and it is partially a Beyonce single. I don't think whether, how or how much Beyonce/lady Gaga is paid is or should be a WP issue. Those that don't like the double entries are trying to create an artificial difference between "duet" and "featured" and I say that's either pedantic or can't be quantified. I notice the Beyonce single featuring Lady Gaga has not been mentioned... Atlantic can't change their mind - the ink is dry on the contract, but I guess they wish they could change their minds! Hindsight is 20/20 vision!

If you are looking for a categorisation which is not correct look at the whole category songs by artist - Category:Foo songs actually means Category:Songs recorded by Foo for instance Fever (1956 song) is classified as Category:Amanda Lear songs, Category:Beyoncé Knowles songs, Category:Peggy Lee songs, Category:Elvis Presley songs, Category:Ella Fitzgerald songs and Category:Rita Coolidge songs --Richhoncho (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce only features Lady Gaga in the "extended version" of her single. The album and version only has Beyonce. Basically Lady Gaga was featured on the remix of the single, not the actual single. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that no one calls these "duets". I must presume that the term "featured" is being used for some reason.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is a "duet", then why don't both artists release it. Contracts could be made up that way.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If and what the difference between duet and featured is I suspect is more linquistic fashion than anything else, but if anybody can prove me wrong... The reason both record labels don't release the same single is because of the physical vinyl/CD. If both record companies pressed the single there would be competition as to who sold most copies. The way they do it makes economic sense. When (and if) it's only downloads, then I suspect a different business model could be used. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why a physical CD single could not be produced jointly by the two record labels. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why neither of us are in the music business. LOL --Richhoncho (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have a compromise. The other artist will appear in the chronology, but we will not have the chronology title say "singles". It will be "Beyonce chronology" as opposed to "Beyonce singles chronology". I'm open to "Beyonce songs chronology" as well if anyone thinks that is better. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are getting there, but it's not the article containing the featured artist that is the real problem, but the other "singles" listed by that artist, i.e the before and after releases. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Then add an additional chronology for the artist there too, but we cannot continue to label the songs singles for the other artists when they are not. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are making a big deal about the difference between single by and single with, and yet you accept Category:Foo songs. Doesn't make sense to me. Removing "single" to insert "chronology" doesn't change anything except for nearly every song article. Instead of trying to solve one problem you should sit down and really think how it affects every song article. In the instance of Telephone, it's not that article that needs changing, it's every other article around it. Oh well, you could solve the problem but you'll need to think outside the box. BTW a "medley" means doesn't mean several singers! LOL --Richhoncho (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're even close to being there. Based on your arguments, it shouldn't be there at all and you shouldn't be trying to come up with inadequate compromises that will affect other articles more than the ones your concerned about. The problem is you are putting on wikipedians to define what "featured" means. The use of the team can mean anything from a brief vocal to full fledged performance. You can't convince me that "Smooth" is not a Rob Thomas single or "All I Have" is not an LL Cool J single, just because they are credited as a featured artist. The "credit" is agreed upon by all artists and their own record labels. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'songs' and 'singles'.
I do not support "Beyonce songs chronology" because that would mean listing songs by Album 1, Track 1, Track 2... then Album 2, Track 1, Track 2...and other appearances placed in-between the Albums as appropriate to when they occurred. However aCategory:Foo songs is fine because it is an alpha list of songs in which they appear. I still say that any other artists should be PROPERLY credited [either as featuring with Foo, or it is Foo featuring with other artists] there as well.
Regarding "Smooth", our answer is contained in the cover art (if OFFICIAL). It shows Rob Thomas as the featured artist. We may not all agree with that designation, but should stick with it as it is the 'credit' "agreed upon by all artists and their own record labels".—Iknow23 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead links at YouTube due to the moving of Music Videos to VEVO

I have noticed that Universal Music Group has been moving their videos to VEVO and that prior 'regular' YouTube links are now dead. So if you have their YouTube music videos linked in infoboxes or used in references, you will most likely need to update them. According to the VEVO wiki, additonal record labels are expected to join VEVO. If they do, we can probably expect that their prior 'regular' YouTube links will also go dead.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this is going to work great for some of us, Vevo is not available in my country. kiac. (talk-contrib) 14:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be great for where they work, though. Should eliminate any question of WP:COPYVIO on these if they're coming from the record companies.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The songs meaning?

I think Breakeven is about a guy who likes a girl but the girl doesnt like him back and they broke up . But he still has a crush on her and he wishes she would come back to him. And the girl doesnt mind and shes totally fine but the boys upset I have the same situation cept im a girl and hes a guy and we were never a couple. Anyone else agree about the songs plot? If no, why not? ANyone else have adivce for me? 72.192.180.223 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This would need to be sourced, preferably from the writer of the song, but your interpretation may well be different and thus not allowed here. Do the band have a website where they explain this? Rodhullandemu 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronologies in infoboxes for songs with a featured artist

For songs like Lady Gaga's Telephone (song) featuring Beyonce, the featured artist's singles chronology has been added to the infobox underneath the main artist's. I disagree with this practice because it implies that the single is also a single of the featured artist, which it is not in most cases. Beyonce and her record label did not release Telephone as a single from her album (or alone) and do promo for it, only Gaga did. So why have people been adding "Beyonce singles chronology" and the same for other artists to a song page that is not even a single for the artist being featured? I don't oppose some sort of chronology for the featured artist, but "singles" is misleading. The infobox guidelines are extremely vague so it would be great if we could decide what to do about featured artists and then add it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent, insomuch as it is messy and not strictly true. On the other hand it is also a Beyonce single for which she will get a share of royalties. Maybe the solution is write on the template something like "Telephone (Lady Gaga featuring Beyonce) and pipe it to the article. Maybe there are other and better suggestions? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Infobox on the page for the song. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did read you wrong, but I still think my initial sentamce stands. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What article would I be piping it to? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if she gets royalties, the chronology is for released "singles" by the artist. Just because she sings in it does not make it her single. It's not "Beyonce's new single" its "Lady Gaga's new single with Beyonce in it". The singles chronology should match up with the discography page which it doesn't as of now. There needs to be consistency. Telephone is not listed as one of Beyonce's singles on her discography, it is in a separate section for songs that she is featured in where it belongs. If the chronology was for say "Beyonce featured singles" or something different then fine, but as of now its plain wrong. It is not her single and therefore cannot be in a singles chronology for her. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the "featured artist" is such commonplace in the music industry today, I am not against the current practice. If one counts the number of top 40 hits for Beyoncé, this would be considered among them because of that credit. Because the discography page splits her featured appearances as does the Beyoncé Knowles singles template, it's adequately addressed. Similarly, discography pages often have separate sections for studio albums vs. live and compilation albums, but the chronology in the infobox for these albums are usually combined. The issue in consistency lies in where it says the previous single for Lady Gaga is "Bad Romance" but the next single for "Bad Romance" says its "Video Phone". --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, while Beyoncé's record label may not have released the single, they had to approve its release. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

^That and it is credited to the featured artist in terms of commercial reception and chart performance also. If the song possibly tops a chart, not only Gaga, but Beyonce will be given the credit for the #1. There lies the problem when a regular reader will come and search for the song using the chronology boxes and that one will not be present. Hence Im still up for the old method. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Grk1011/Stephen for starting this discussion as I was about to do the same. I agree with you, "the chronology is for released 'singles' by the artist. Just because she sings in it does not make it her single. It's not 'Beyonce's new single' its 'Lady Gaga's new single with Beyonce in it'." Yes, there is a distinction between a 'featured artist' and THE 'releasing artist'. It is properly noted as being one of Beyoncé's "Featured singles" in her navbox.
My position is that "Beyoncé singles chronology" AND "Beyoncé singles" navbox should NOT appear on other artist's pages. Same to apply to other 'featured' artists for their chronology and navbox NOT to appear on the 'releasing' artist's pages.
What I have been doing, is including the 'featured' info along with the 'releasing' artist's infobox, with a link to the featured artist page. This plus the fact that the featured artist will undoubtedly be mentioned (and linked) within the article text should be sufficient credit for the featured artist. If anyone seeks further information on the featured artist, just click on one the links and go to their page. See example:

"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4"
Song

—Iknow23 (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in adding anything more than the song title in the chronology section of the infobox. The artist section already says who the featured artist is. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So why add the extra chronology? How can the singles chronology of an artist include songs that aren't singles of the artist? I'm not opposing credit for the featured artist, just the false labeling of a single. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am more awake now. I think the problem you have identified needs to be thought in reverse order for a moment. Would those editing Beyonce want to add the Lady Gaga single into Beyonce's singles discography (as already shown by the Beyonce template)? I think that attitude will be fairly standard where this occurs and I really can't think that the numerous edits and edit wars that would ensue if WP decided it wasn't the done thing are really worth the effort. Furthermore, it IS a single and Beyonce IS named as an artist, so in general terms and without arguing the specifics, it is a Beyonce single - notwithstanding she is not the main or lead artist, or on her "regular" label or any other reason for separation. In common with many other generalisations (for instance is a "live" album really a live album if parts have been added/substituted later?) WP doesn't always handle preciseness very well. So although I fully understand Stephen's point, I don't think there's much that can be done with it.... but I am happy to reconsider if somebody has a good suggestion that avoids the unneccesary wars that would follow if the present arrangement was stopped! --Richhoncho (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Revised my example. Beyoncé's last name is not necessary to appear, but still linked to her page. The reason that I suggest: "Telephone" (featuring Beyoncé) is that's the way I generally see such songs described and discussed. It's kind of like the industry term of 'standard usage' to describe this type of song. Thus, as it is generally understood, I thought we should adopt the same.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the points mentioned above are all valid and i think the consensus seems to be clear. "Telephone" is a Lady Gaga single which feature Beyonce. It is ONLY classified as a Lady Gaga single because it ONLY appears on HER album. Therefore there is no justification to put beyonce in the infobox. Had it featured on Beyonce's album then it would have been appropriate. Putting beyonce's catagory at the bottom of the page would be acceptable. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

Unsure that I understand what you mean. Do you like the example:
"Telephone"
(featuring Beyoncé)
(2010)
but do not want the "Beyoncé singles chronology" added within Lady Gaga's infobox?
I understand that you accept the "Beyoncé Knowles songs" category that appears. Do you accept the "Beyoncé single discography" navbox to also be there?
NEW ISSUE: There is inconsistency on the page in that Beyoncé is in the infobox as one of the Writer(s), but the text in the article lead, Background and Composition has no such mention? Perhaps an overzealous Beyoncé fan just placed her name in there?
—Iknow23 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, an artist cannot release a single from someone else's album. I would support having both Beyonce songs cat and singles navbox because it is a song with her in it and the singles navbox has a place for singles of other artists that she is featured in. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals regarding 'featured artist' Chronologies, Categories, Navboxes, Infobox "Artist" field on 'releasing artist' pages

Ok, let's try to put this in a more clear fashion.
'featured artist' in this example = Beyoncé
'releasing artist' in this example = Lady Gaga
LIST YOUR Support or Oppose of the following by indicating the number: (include explanation)
For clarity all items are listed in the 'positive', so no one has to say "No" to a 'negative' statement. This does not mean that I support them in the 'positive' position as you see below.

1. Allowing "Beyonce singles chronology" or 'featured artist' chronology as an extra chronology in the 'releasing artist's infobox.
2. LIST as "Telephone"
   (featuring Beyoncé)
   (2010)...or showing 'featured artist' name in 'releasing artist' singles chronology
3. Allowing Cat of "Beyoncé Knowles songs" or Cat of 'featured artist' on 'releasing artist' page
4. Allowing Navbox of "Beyoncé single discography" or any other 'featured artist' navbox on 'releasing artist' page
5. Allowing the creation of a new "Artist" name in infobox, being in this case "Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé"

—Iknow23 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC) added parameter 5 —Iknow23 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is to summarize my positions that are discussed more fully above.

1. Oppose
2. Support
3. Oppose
4. Support, but ONLY because it is shown properly in this instance as a "Featured singles" item and only on THIS 'single' page and perhaps also on The Fame Monster page as THIS song is a part of it.
   —Iknow23 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

revised position 4. —Iknow23 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support 1, 3 and 4. No comment 2.

It appears to be fairly standard practice at WP to list the single chronology for both artists, see Dancing in the Street, Under Pressure, Video Phone (song), Beautiful Liar, Jimmy Crack Corn (song), I'm Gonna Make You Love Me, 4 Minutes (Madonna song), Especially for You and Where the Wild Roses Grow for the examples I found in a couple of minutes. More can be found at Category:Vocal duets. Those that are for these proposals will need to consider how it affects other songs and exactly what guidelines need to be created. It would be difficult to use which album the song came from for guidance, as some appear on both artist's albums and some songs are not featured on any album by either artist, some are released by artists on the same label, so record label doesn't sort it. I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find an example where the single was released on a third label! That, as far as I can see, only leaves one way to decide whether both artists are listed in the infobox singles chronology - set a percentage contribution necessary and get the tape measure out and measure the contribution of both artists. Besides failing WP:OR that wouldn't work! Remember any classification at WP is a blunt instrument at best and the creation of Category: singles featuring Beyonce where she is not the lead artist is not going to serve any real purpose.

In reality I think a great number of editors who have never seen this page and will not know this discussion is happening have already decided the issue for us.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 and 2, Support 3 and 4.

Supporting number 1 and 2 just clutters the infobox. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I can probably state my position more clearly. I just don't think it is appropriate for a 'featured artist' to have such a LARGE presence on the 'releasing artist's' pages. The 'featured artist' is mentioned with links, which should be sufficient. Those that want to know more about the 'featured artist' can just follow the links as they do have their OWN pages.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's call it what I think it really is...oftimes fans of a 'lesser' artist 'propping up' their artist with a 'larger' artist OVERappearance on the page. It is an indiscriminate collection of information as "Excessive listing of statistics" as links can just be followed over to the 'featured artist' page. It is not necessary for the 'releasing artist' page to be so cluttered with 'featured artist' info.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 and 2, Support 3 and 4.

Songs featuring other artists are not singles of the featured artist (unless perhaps both artists release them specifically as singles). No where does it say "Beyonce's new single Telephone" in sources and it would be original research to say it is which we have done here. It already says in the infobox "featuring Beyonce" so there is no reason to jam a Beyonce singles chronology onto the bottom just because it is a single with Beyonce in it. The chronology is for singles "by" the artist, not every song categorized as a single that the artist sings in. It is grossly misleading. The fact that many other song pages include the featured artist's chronology is not a good reason to oppose this change in practice because just because it occurs does not mean it is right. If the number of changes is the problem, make a list and I will personally correct them all. When we have massive category renamings we don't say oh well there's too many pages, so why would we in this case when the change is for a good reason?

As for the navboxes and categories, "Beyonce Knowles songs" is appropriate because it is a song with Beyonce (not a single, make the distinction). A navbox provides navigation between articles related to its subject. Beyonce being in the song makes it related to her, not to mention there is a section for songs of other artists that she is featured in. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still a little hesitant about Cat "Beyoncé Knowles songs" because that makes it seem to be 'her' song. It is still really a Lady Gaga song that happens to have some vocals from Beyoncé in it. I would agree that it can be classified as one of "Beyoncé Knowles songs" if she is one of its songwriters, but I say that that is in dispute. I previously noted above...
"NEW ISSUE: There is inconsistency on the page in that Beyoncé is in the infobox as one of the Writer(s), but the text in the article lead, Background and Composition has no such mention? Perhaps an overzealous Beyoncé fan just placed her name in there?" [infobox]—Iknow23 (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

new parameter 5 Added above.

• Oppose It's almost like creating a new band name each time there is a 'featured artist'. This seems to be quite unwieldly. I prefer that the infobox Artist field be reserved ONLY for the 'releasing artist' and for the 'featured artist' to be shown as in parameter 2.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is just me, but an artist name of "Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé" makes me think of a tour performance, more like "Lady Gaga wsg Beyoncé". I have become accustomed to the usage of 'featured' ONLY in song titles, and not in being tacked onto the "releasing artist's" name.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

One important reason why I like parameter 2 is that the "(featuring Beyoncé)" portion can then be seen on the 'prior' and 'next' items in the 'Lady Gaga singles chronology'. I realize that this info is not critical on this, being the page of, but would still show it to be consistent with the display of this item on the 'prior' and 'next' pages. WHY do this? I think it is proper to show the 'featured' info on those other pages. This serves to give Beyoncé 'her due' on these other pages as should be expected. To ONLY display ["Telephone" (2009)] on the other pages inappropriately leaves out the credit of Beyoncé's contribution.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support all but #2
  1. List all credited artists singles chronology. I do not see it as clutter, even among infoboxes for "Crack a Bottle" and "Lady Marmalade". In fact, I find it informative.
  2. The chronology itself should list the song title and year released, nothing more. How would you do this if there are 3 or 4 featured artists? Now that would be clutter.
  3. Historically, if one counts the number of top 40 hits Beyoncé has in her career, this will be counted among them.
  4. There is a featured artist section on the navbox for Beyoncé's singles and I see nothing wrong with including it here. However, adding the Beyoncé navbox as well, would be excessive. In other words, the navbox should include the article on which its being included.
  5. I support listing the "artist(s)" as credited on the primary single release (as opposed to a remix as a bonus track or something).

The whole "whose album is it on" is silly - that would make "Say Say Say" a Paul McCartney single and we shouldn't include Michael Jackson's singles chronology. Yes, the "featured artist" is way overused today but it has become standard use in the industry (and just as annoying as deluxe edition albums), but it's the way it is. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Say Say Say" is different. It's really a "duo". See Credits

Written, arranged and composed by Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney

Lead and background vocals by Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney
—Iknow23 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What difference does that make? See Dead and Gone – co-written and co-produced by Justin Timberlake and he's the featured artist. Why treat this any differently? --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1. "Lady Marmalade" is also different. It is a 'medley' from a movie soundtrack. Note that it is in an entirely separate infobox and not all jammed up into the "Single by Labelle" infobox.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about the Labelle version or how it was used in the film. I'm talking about the four chronologies for the four different credited artists for the single, and I believe it is fine that way. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

2. I'd still rather see the 3 or 4 featured artists credited in the chronology with the song...to not do so leaves the mistaken impression [on the 'prior' and 'next' individual pages] that its only the 'releasing artist' on it. I prefer this crediting 'clutter' to that of the 3 or 4 other artist chronologies as they are superfluous.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So how would Aguilera's prior single chronolgoy be shown in "Dirrty"? --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support all but 2

"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4"
Song

How's that? I don't really see the big deal about putting the featuring artist in the infobox: such as Telephone with Beyonce and Video Phone with Lady Gaga. Seeing as it's a single, the chronologies should mention whoever is featured in the single. Even though Video Phone is not Lady Gaga's 'song', she's featured in the 'single'. Like I said in the Video Phone discussion page, it's a single chronology, not a song chronology. They deserve credit too, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The song deserves credit? People are the ones that get credit. "it's a single chronology" but it has an artist's name there too. So you are calling "Video Phone" Lady Gaga's single? The usual understanding of that means that Lady Gaga released it as a single but Beyoncé did. I just think its best to use the 'industry standard' of saying:
"Song Title" featuring Artist 2 has been released by Artist 1.
Thus keeping the featured info linked to the song title so the featured artist will get credit wherever the song is mentioned. (Within reason of course, in text; such as upon the first mention in an article and perhaps again in certain other sections, but certainly should appear in infobox or other more 'visual' formats.)
I am indeed quite perplexed as to why Wikipedia should not adopt this 'industry standard' terminology and usage?—Iknow23 (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were industry standard, Billboard would list songs as "Down" featuring Lil Wayne by Jay Sean, yet it's shown as "Down" by Jay Sean featuring Lil Wayne. Billboard typically takes its cues from the industry in terms of how artists are credited.

Regarding the prior/next singles in the infobox, it tells you what the prior/next single for that artist was/is. It gives no mistaken impression to me at all, regardless of who else sings on it, it's that specific artist's chronology. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When I said "they," I DID mean the people, not the song. Sorry for not being clear. What I meant is that even though it's not their single, they still deserve credit from it. I agree with Iknow23, all I was saying is that you should still mention the single that they are featuring in, in the chronology. Why don't you just place it like how I did it in the infobox? For example, if a reader clicks from Bad Romance to Video Phone, they'll see that they're just a featuring artist, not the main singer. When I see a song in someone's chronology, what I think is that they're just... plainly in the song. The main singer in the top and whoever else on the bottom. Inserting "Telephone (featuring Beyonce)" or "Video Phone (featuring Lady Gaga)" seems kinda.. messy, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the example: "Down" by Jay Sean featuring Lil Wayne. I accept that I didn't use the correct ordering earlier.

So to correctly state it for the example we've been using it would be: "Telephone" by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé

I support THAT wording as it is has been in general usage and understanding. The reason that I vary from that EXACT wording is to eliminate redundancy. In my infobox example (the first example of two that are in this section) it is not just "Telephone" (featuring Beyoncé) by itself without any mention of Lady Gaga because it is contained within a section with a header of "Lady Gaga singles chronology". I definitely would not put "by Lady Gaga" on the singles that are already identified above them as being a "Lady Gaga single".
If its standard industry usage to include a 'featured' credit listed with the song, I say we should show it listed in the infobox, so it will appear on the 'prior' and 'next' items. As to calling that 'clutter': It is only 1 word + 1 name; 1) featuirng 2) Beyoncé. I say it is proper to show the credit. Having the 'featured artist' chronology is much more material, hence more 'clutter'.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the 2nd example listing as "Featuring Artist: Beyoncé singles chronology" as it seems to mean that Beyoncé is the 'featured artist' in ALL of the listings given there, but we really just mean "Telephone". My attempt to give some credit in a more widespread fashion is with the (featuring Beyoncé). When I see a song in an artist's SINGLES chronology, it means to me that that artist released it as a SINGLE as in "It's one of 'their' singles".
"Telephone (featuring Beyoncé)" or "Video Phone (featuring Lady Gaga)" does not seem at all 'messy' to me. It just seems normal. I guess I just got used to the industry usage,—Iknow23 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Lady Marmalade" soundtrack medley infobox states "Christina Aguilera chronology', " 'Lil' Kim chronology"... I am fine with that because it does not show as "Christina Aguilera singles chronology", " 'Lil' Kim singles chronology"... This is a 1) Movie soundtrack, 2) cover version. There can be and usually are more highly complex situations of most things we consider here.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I could support a "Beyoncé chronology" on the "Telephone" page. Note the removal of the word, "singles" as in Lady Marmalade above. However, if "Telephone" is to be included on Beyoncé's 'prior' and 'next' SINGLE items, and listed within a "Beyoncé singles chronology", I say to list it as:
"Telephone"
(Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé)
(2010)
to indicate it's true status and show proper credit to Lady Gaga.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On "Dirrty" I would list it as:
"Lady Marmalade"
(Moulin Rouge! soundtrack album)
(2001)
to show its provenance as a not singularly her single. I would suggest the same for the other artists if they had a chronology in their infoboxes—Iknow23 (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Support
2. Oppose
3. Support
4. Support
5. I don't really get no.5; I support the featured artist being listed in the artist field (ie Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé), but we don't need to create another infobox field to do that. Or would this just simplify the chronology and remove the need for extra chronology templates in the misc parameter?

Adabow (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like where you are headed with no.5 if I understand your meaning. I would support the featured artist being listed in the artist field if then the featured artist chrono is not used. The notability to the PARTICULAR article is that there is a featured artist (which is then satisfied), not in what the featured artist may or may not have done prior or after. For that info, the reader would just expectedly click to the featured artist page(s), being their main, album, songs, etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Past and Next songs in chronology

SEE "Video Phone [EXAMPLE 1]"

"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4"
Song

Since this is from the "Video Phone" article and BOTH Beyoncé and Lady Gaga are discussed in the article text, seeing "Video Phone" THERE on THAT page in BOTH artist's chronology, it is understood [expained in the article text] that it has NOT been released separately by both artists, but both have contributed to it.

But then consider "Telephone" that appears in BOTH artists chronology WITHOUT being discussed in the article.
It looks like EACH artist has INDEPENDENTLY of each other coincidentally released a song with the same title. Two separate recordings of totally different songs, or the SAME song recorded separately by each singer.

My proposal to disambiguate this and to show proper credit to each artist is shown in "Video Phone [EXAMPLE 2]"
Others may think that this looks 'messy' but I contend that it is unavoidable and necessary to show proper credit to both artists.

"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4"
Song

—Iknow23 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how the infobox would look like for Forever (Drake song). --Wolfer68 (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

per article: "'Forever' is a single by hip-hop artist and rapper Drake." So remove the word 'single' from the feat artists chrono like in your example of "Lady Marmalade". See example.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"WikiProject Songs/Archive 4"
Song

Hmm. Actually removing "singles" works. I had somewhat suggested that earlier. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. As you were the starter of the discussion here, you had a good resolution for it :)—Iknow23 (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Show all contributing artists in "Song" name (wiki article names) + discussion on Cover versions

Such as:
Telephone by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé
As pointed out by Wolfer68, "The 'credit' is agreed upon by all artists and their own record labels."
Since this has been 'predetermined' by them, perhaps we should actually title the articles this way?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This way the proper 'credits' will display in the listing in the Cats, and wherever else the songs are linked.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh No, please no. This perpetrates the stupidity that a song "belongs" to the artist that records it. On this talkpage only, just look at the list above I posted, the complaint about Category:Barbra Streisand songs, many listed, but actually not one of them are her song, just songs she has recorded. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Example: Telephone by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé
The 'standard' usage means released by Lady Gaga as a single or it may just appear on a Lady Gaga album (non-single). In this standard nomenclature there exists the further possbility of it being a cover version, utilizing samples, etc. The infobox has the parameter "Writer(s)" to show written by credit(s). We know that not all artists participate in songwriting. And those that do can even record songs written by others on occasion.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Category complaint: The Cats should be disambiguated. Perhaps a Cat for "Songs written by Barbra Streisand" which by the way does not mean written solely by her. Most songs are written with others so they are co-writers. So the 'true' meaning would be 'songs written or co-written by Barbra Streisand'. Then another Cat for "Songs recorded by or with Barbra Streisand".—Iknow23 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, when an artist records a song, the version that they recorded kind of belongs to them, right? It's their voice on it. If its not their ORIGINAL song, they had to set up 'royalty' payments or make other appropriate arrangements.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We know what "Category:<artist>songs" means, but that's not what it says. Furthermore, articles are about songs, not recordings. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there really many articles about songs that have not been recorded?—Iknow23 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of articles about songs recorded by more than one artist. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed artificial split of section - if I respond to another editor I don't expect it turned into the start of another section! --Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Each 'recording' is a separate item, and I expect any cover versions to be mentioned in the 'originators' article. However, those which become 'notable' I expect to have their own wiki article. Again if they are notable, chances are that people may be interested in these 'other' (cover) versions.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority of songs are NOT split, there is a minority where fans of a specific artist don't want them merged. That's all. May I remind you that most articles start "XXX is a song...." not "XXX is a recording..." And that is the difference, pure and simple. This part started because you wanted to put the artists name in the title, which doesn't work for all the reasons Melodia and I have pointed out. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "XXX is a song covered by [artist]. It was originally performed by [original artist]...." The proper songwriting credits will show in the infobox.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it would be absolutely ridiculous to include every artist who recorded some songs as a category. Would you REALLY want 200 categories on Yesterday? The only time I could see it is if an artist is particularly associated with the song, like in the case of say Unchained Melody, where The Righteous Brothers recorded the definitive version, even though they didn't contibute to its creation.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And, as before, I agree with you. However, for some songs there is more than one notable version and it is not unreasonble to list accordingly (but not separate articles). The things I object to are things like American Pie (Madonna song) because it's not, never will be and never can be her song - it's a song she has recorded and for exactly the same reasons I object to it included in Category:Madonna (entertainer) songs. Now if it was Category:Songs recorded by Madonna (entertainer) there could be no objection. I use American Pie as an example - it's not worrying me anymore than similar situations. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As above, I do SUPPORT separate articles for notable "cover versions". I share your objection to the title American Pie (Madonna song) as being inaccurate (same as the chrono infoboxes are inaccurate when stating a song is an artist's single when they never released it). I suggest the title should be American Pie (Madonna cover). Even better but probably too wordy is American Pie (covered by Madonna). Either of these will show in other listings (like Cats) line items as being a 'cover' and not implying it is their song. Just this version of it is.
I also SUPPORT your suggestion of Category:Songs recorded by Madonna (entertainer)—Iknow23 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In a case where there is a featured artist in a cover song, I would recommend something like: Telephone (cover by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé) <I know this is not a cover, just for example purposes.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Example revised—Iknow23 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your comments belong over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions where there is already a discussion regarding "cover versions". --Richhoncho (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Released/Recorded date for singles

For singles that are released after an album, should the released date in the infobox indicate when the album was released or should it indicate when the single was released? For example, Runaway Train (song) was apparently released in an album in 1992, then as a single in 1993. Which should be used in the infobox? — RockMFR 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox in this case is referring to the single, so the date of release of the single would be appropriate. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Songs sampling other songs

Is there a good model for how to handle information about what songs are sampled in a given song or album? Should all the info be included, or is it indiscriminate? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that proper credit should be shown. Here is an example from an Album Battlefield (album)#Track listing (See Track 4). And the corresponding "Song" article at "S.O.S. (Let the Music Play)".—Iknow23 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though what I failed to indicate above was how to handle it when a song samples many other songs, if that's best handled in prose, in a table, in a footnote, or just the more notable samples mentioned. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that degree of complexity so unsure how it would be best to present that much info, but still say that ALL of the many should be credited.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few examples of WP articles and how they handle samples, samples of samples as it were: Feed the Animals#Track listing:list of track time of where sample appears, artist and title of song sampled. The Adventures of Grandmaster Flash on the Wheels of Steel#Samples: list of title of song and artist sampled. U Can't Touch This: artist and title of song sampled and degree of use mentioned in lede (perhaps easier since it was just one). What these leave out: what specific recording of the song is sampled, how long the sample itself is (track time doesn't indicate this, if it's a short clip repeated), whether the sample is altered in some way, whether the sample was authorized, source(s) for info on the identification of sample (liner notes, reliable magazine, etc.), maybe other things I'm not thinking of at the moment. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my! I'll start with the easy one:

• U Can't Touch This - The sampling credit is in the first paragraph of the lead and as you say only one song sampled here, so I believe this is sufficient.
• Feed the Animals#Track listing - "It is composed almost entirely of samples" !!! and samples of other samples! This has to be the most extreme scenario possible. Since there are so many, I believe it is appropriate to list their appearance in the Track time index as is shown. The bulleted list seems fine to me. It would be preferred that the "Unidentified samples" could be placed where appropriate within this album's track list even if the appearance time index is unknown.
• The Adventures of Grandmaster Flash on the Wheels of Steel#Samples - my main concern is with "some of the primary records utilized to create the mix included" as my position is that ALL should be credited. None 'utilized' should be left out.
  

As to what 'these leave out', my position is ALWAYS disambiguate 'what specific recording of the song is sampled' as to what remix or cover version it is for example. I guess it is also possible to sample a cover version's sample of another song?! Of course the material should be verifiably referenced.
As to "how long the sample itself is", "if it's a short clip repeated", or consists of some repeating elements and others just used once, "whether the sample is altered in some way" - I am a bit hesitant here that it could be indiscriminate. A link could be given if someone wants this additional info like is on the Feed the Animals#External links Andy Baio's analysis regarding songs sampled in the album.
I would support a brief mention of "whether the sample is altered in some way" as in it was 'chopped and screwed' for example but very specific recording engineer or DJ terminology is to be avoided. We do not have to have a manual as to how to re-create it. Like in: at song time index 0:26 - 0:32 insert sample time index 1:03 - 1:09 at time scale 76%, at song time index 1:18 - 1:31 insert sample time index 0:26 - 0:39 at time scale 115%, at song time index 2:02 - 2:08 insert sample 1 again, etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Lonely (Akon song)#Writing and inspiration mentions a case of a sample that was sped up, apparently at two different speeds if I read it correctly.

With the two longer examples above, I still wonder if there's not possibly a better way of presenting the information. Table? Smaller font?

I suspect that sampling info sometimes (often?) gets added as original research; one of the sources for Feed the Animals mentions Wikipedians collaborating on identifying the songs prior to the officially released list. I haven't read everything there to know whether the matching of samples to songs and the times were done by WPians or RS.

If the info is all in the liner notes, I wasn't sure if WP should copy it all; film articles don't duplicate the complete cast and crew credits, only the most relevant ones AFAIK. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The anecdotal mention of the 'sped-up sample' at the Akon song is fine with me. I'm also fine with how the info is currently presented at the long examples, but I do not say it is impossible to do better.

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." with reliable sources. So speculation and/or original research is to be avoided.

My position is that just because there are many samples, is no reason to not properly credit them ALL (with proper sources).

Regards the film articles not having the complete crew credits, the same applies in many music articles; in that the entire production crew, mixing engineers, etc. are not always shown.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Chart performance

On the article, "Tik Tok (song)", a user has cut the content out of the chart performance section and pasted it into another section which consists of the chart table and procession/succession box. I have since reverted it back to what it was because I want the issue resolved here so no edit war of such occurs. The reason given for this was per Wikipedia:SONGS#Chart performance.2C charts and succession. If that is the case, then why do other well written song articles that have passed WP:GA use the format where the chart performance has its own section? Examples include "Just Dance", "Poker Face (Lady Gaga song)" and "LoveGame." If this guideline had to be followed, I am sure the reviewer would of picked up on it. Must we follow exactly what it states? It does not say that it is compulsory to format it that way. • вяαdcяochat 04:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the other "user" in question and this is what my edit was. The statement above is not entirely accurate. As can be seen I did not just "cut the content out of the chart performance section and pasted it into another section." What I did was combine the sections under a section heading of "Chart performance" as per WP:SONG#Chart performance, charts and succession. I did keep a section heading of "Chart performance". I listed the "Charts" and "Chart procession and succession" as sub-headings within "Chart performance" as they are part of chart performance information. I don't see how anyone can claim that a table of record charts showing peak chart positions does not give detail of "Chart performance".

Hmmm, I would actually support that the section be titled "Chart and sales performance" because of the "Sales and certifications" table that is included. OR split off "Sales and certifications" into it's own section. But I digress.

Why should "Chart performance" be separated from a table showing peak chart positions (performance) by other unrelated sections (Music video)? Such separation invites redundancy in that some chart info is in the article lead, then in the "Chart performance" and then again in the "Charts". With "Charts" being within "Chart performance" the temptation to repeat peak positions should be less as it appears directly below in the "Charts".—Iknow23 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted? Shouldn't it remain as per WP:SONG#Chart performance, charts and succession until and unless a consensus is reached to change WP:SONG#Chart performance, charts and succession?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should remain how it originally was until consensus is gained since you were the one who insisted the change to be made. Per Wikipedia:SONGS#Chart performance.2C charts and succession, you are correct. However that being said, take a look at Wikipedia:SONGS#Models. It states: the following is a list of featured articles on songs and singles. These are articles that the community as a whole have judged as being some of the best articles on Wikipedia. They can serve as excellent examples for articles on singles and songs. Those articles that incorporate a summary of chart performance have the content in an individual section. "4_Minutes (Madonna song)", "Hey Baby (No Doubt song)" or "What You Waiting For?" just to list a few. I am not sure about you, but I aim to get "Tik Tok (song)" to a high standard sometime in the near future. I think we need a WP:30. • вяαdcяochat 22:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't WP:SONG#Chart performance, charts and succession formed by consensus? It insisted the change, I was just implementing it. My aim was to get "Tik Tok (song)" to comply with the standard. As in EVERY standard, I'm sure there are many examples where the standard is not followed. Yes, I look forward to the participation of other editors in this discussion also.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help from someone who can read music

Hey, I have a request for anyone who can read music and has the music notes software. I'm trying to do some work on the composition section in "City of Blinding Lights". What I have so far from the music notes software (here) is "City of Blinding Lights" is played in a key of A-major at a speed of 139 BPM in common time. The vocals range from F♯4 to A7." What I think I need now is a chord sequence, the kind of tempo it is played at, and more specific vocal ranges throughout the song. The article recently passed GA and I'd really like to get it up to FA; but with what I have so far I think that just isn't possible. Any help that can be provided at all with this would be very much appreciated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch the above; I was able to find a source which detailed everything I needed to know. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 singles

Hi, I have created articles for list of top 10 singles in the UK, from 2002 to 2010. 2003 and 2009 are the two years which are complete (but they need checking to see that I haven't missed any songs out). Can I get some collaboration going on the other existing articles. Chart data can be found here but make sure that you subtract 6 days off their listed dates to give the date that the chart was revealed. Please let me know here if you can help. Thanks. 03md 00:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice of requested move for song-related page

I nominated the article Pitchfork 500 : Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present to be moved to the simpler name The Pitchfork 500. Further explanation can be found at the talk page. Please offer your input if you are interested. (Also, I just added the WikiProject Songs banner to that article's talk page, since it wasn't under the scope of any WikiProject. This WikiProject seems the most relevant.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR headsup

I have put Giovinezza on hold at WP:GAR for a few (relatively) minor issues (see Talk:Giovinezza/GA1) however the main (and pretty much sole significant) contributor has informed me he doesn't have the time to fix it. If there are any interested parties, you've got a week to pop over. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello. Would it make sense to make every subcategory of Songs by year a subcategory of the corresponding Compositions by year category? Currently, 1999 songs is not a subcategory of 1999 compositions, but rather both are subcategories of 1999 works – even though a song is clearly a composition as well. Also, I think instrumental compositions should not be included in the "songs by year" categories, but rather directly under "compositions by year", as well as Instrumentals. What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Cover Songs, which I'm sure are included in 'Songs by year', do not qualify under Musical composition "an original piece of music".—Iknow23 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. So the "songs by year" categories contain all songs released that year, regardless of when they were written? If that's the case, shouldn't the songs still be categorized under "compositions by year" for the year they were composed? That doesn't seem to be the case. And what about instrumentals, surely they don't belong in the "songs by year" categories? Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, the project page says "Note: A song should only be categorised once in Category:Songs by year either by the year of first publication or release (whichever is earliest). Obviously if it is released as a single more than once it should be listed accordingly." So, effectively, it is the year of first public prominence (as opposed to year of creation which could, theoretically, be any year previous), and certainly not NOT the year of recording which could have multiple meaningless entries. The real problem with year of composition, is a song might be written in, say, 2000, but not known to exist until 2010, we have no way of telling in every instance. I hope that's clearer than mud. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was under the impression that compositions were categorized by year of publication/release too. I may be wrong, though. Jafeluv (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So, should instrumentals included in song categories (like "songs by artist", "songs by year", etc.)? I'm asking because currently they are, and it seems that they logically shouldn't (since they're not songs). Jafeluv (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Double singles

Is there a policy on double A-side singles about whether the songs both have individual articles? As I understand it, Wikipedia looks at music compositions as songs first and foremost and therefore charting songs should be given individual articles. For example, "Say Goodbye" and "Love Ain't Gonna Wait For You" by S Club both redirect to one article about the single, whereas "You and I" and "Don't Let Me Down" by Will Young are separate articles. Any ideas? 03md 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Singles from an album

Please see a discussion on the WikiProject Albums discussion page about the notion of when a single is and is not from an album. Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The role of MUSTARD

WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD are ostensibly in an "umbrella" role to all music-related projects. Contributions are invited to a new discussion on this topic. Thanks. PL290 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC for "City of Blinding Lights"

Hello all, I would just like to inform you that "City of Blinding Lights" is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should "aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification on the relevant WikiProject's talk page would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similarly-worded notification has also been placed at Talk:U2. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to retitle instrumental articles

I'm not involved with this or any other music-related WikiProject, but I thought there may be editors interested in participating in the Move Request discussion at Talk:Long Gone (1948 song). Another editor is suggesting that all articles with (song) in the title that are about instrumental compositions should be renamed, beginning with the four articles named in this Move Request. Propaniac (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Exes, not Ex's

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/All_My_Ex%27s_Live_in_Texas

Please someone fix the error in the title of the song on the above page. I fixed the errors I could but the title is not available for edit, I think.

THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.221.66 (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked with BMI and BMI says "Ex's" so I guess that is the correct title. "Exes" is generally spelling for an abbreviated "expenses." I have reverted and added a reference. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Question on Gee (Girls' Generation song)

The page is about the song from an EP/maxi-single that was released in Korea early last year.

However, the infobox is about the EP. It had the single infobox until recently, when an editor decided to switch it to the album...even though the chronology now lists the followup song instead of the followup EP.

Considering that the page has information on both, which infobox should be used? And should the album page be split off??? (The reason it hasn't is because almost all the information would be duplicated with a separate page; any standalone info about the album would amount to a stub article. But if there are convincing arguments, I can do the work to split it off.)

Any input would help. Thanks in advance. SKS (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi,
could someone give me additional opinions about the reliability of the following sources:

• http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/charts/mu191209.shtml
• http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/
• http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
• http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691

It's about the second/third single from Rated R (Rihanna album), "Rude Boy". I initially left a message at WP:RS/N, but since those are all very specialized music-related websites, I hope that someone here can give me an assessment.
Thank you, Amalthea 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In that list digitalspy. Be careful future releases hit WP:CRYSTAL especially if a download only release. SunCreator (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Question at RSN on musicnotes.com

Hi, I'm doing a GA review and would be grateful for input from knowledgeable editors here: Wikipedia:RSN#Musicnotes.com regarding use of musicnotes.com sheet music links as reliable sources in song articles.

It's about two things:

1. musicnotes.com is a commercial site, requiring our readers to download free software, which includes "5 free songs" (and presumably means that subsequent songs have to be paid for; there is a shopping cart at the top of the page);
2. how reliable is the sheet music for statements such as "the song is in E-minor, uses four instruments, and is played at a tempo of 130 beats per minute"? Isn't the sheet music's aim to give people a version they can play at home, rather than a 100% faithful transcription of the song as recorded by the original artist?

Please weigh in at RSN. Thanks for your time. --JN466 22:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

SOmeone

at Money (That's What I Want) changed the records podsiton on the "charts" to "chart." Is "charts" not always plural? I think so, but wish to get a 2nd, 3rd and even 4th opinon before reverting anythig. Your turn. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A specific chart is singular such as the "US R&B chart" versus a general discussion of many charts as in 'the song appeared on charts of several countries'. I know this is from LONG AGO but the chart information should still be referenced if possible. Otherwise it may be challenged as 'unsourced' and removed. Hope this helps.—Iknow23 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So I think that the way it was edited is okay. However I don't know what the source for this info is - I'll look and see if I can find something about the R&B charts. thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently created

a category called Category: Hal Blaine Strikes Again and have been posting it on articles already written about the records that Blaine played on. Almost 100 so far. The title of the category refers to a rubber stamp that Blaine used to stamp his charts with. I realize that neither the category nor its name are mainstream, but, does everything need to be? Anyway, the category is up for deletion and I'm hoping that editors who at least are knowledgeable and care about this sort of thing will look and think and and vote [1] there. Vote any way that you wish, but do check it out. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Release information

When you click the (see Release information) you get a table something like the one below.

Region	Date	Type	Other Details
United States	January 20, 2009	Airplay
	January 30, 2009	Physical	CD single, 12" Club Promo
	January 30, 2009	Digital single
Brazil	February 11, 2009	Digital single
Australia	February 19, 2010	Physical	CD single, 12"
	February 15, 2009	Digital single	Radio edit
Germany	April 3, 2009	Digital single
United Kingdom	January 22, 2009	Digital single	Live version
	January 25, 2009		Wikipedia remix
	April 1, 2009		Radio edit featuring Chipmunk.
	February 1, 2010	Physical	CD single, 7", 12", CD Maxi

Advantages of this is likely to considerably reduce war editing as release date spells out more about what sort of release date it is. Table is flexible, so we can add relevent release information as we see fit. SunCreator (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to exclude physical dates for markets such as AUS, the US, Canada, etc. because they are quite irrelevant and have virtually zero effect on the chart as close to no-one purchases them in those markets. It just seems to make this look unnecessarily cluttered. Just my thoughts. Chele9211 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter? It's still released there when the public read an Encyclopedia, and click on release dates on songs, they dont expect to see cherry picked info based on what helps it chart, they want to see all that it's released under. AUS still has a "bareable" CD single sales market. Jayy008 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, whatever is used cannot be 'based on what helps it chart' the most as it may not chart at all.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not show music video information here, even if it can all be contained in a one line 'Worldwide' release listing. All else is only about the Audio product, so please list the Video info in the 'Music video' section. I do realize that there can be (and often are) Deluxe versions that include music videos, pictures, etc but they are in combination with the audio product and cannot be separated from them. Video to air or video available to purchase dates, please mention in the Music video section.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Have removed video from the options. Will talk to you directly about this. SunCreator (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I find release history tables cumbersome and hard to verify with older releases. That's why I always opt for prose instead, and I personally recommend the same to others. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This dialogue arose out of the problems of the release date in the info box. If you remove a release tables to prose are you happy to remove the release date from the song/single info box entirely. SunCreator (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would you remove the release date from the infobox if there's not a release history chart? The first date of release should be indicated regardless. Another thing: what's with this trend I've seen in song articles recently where the release field contains a link to the a section of the exact same article? This is pretty redundant to the table of contents right after the lead, and is therefore a needless redundant link. It's the same reason why linking to the "musical style" in the genre field is discouraged. An infobox is a summary of infomation with wikilinks to other articles as needed; they don't link to themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the 'Released date' in the infobox becomes a source of edit warring, even when they are good faith edits - as so many editors have a differing view of what the relase date is, both amoung IP's and established editors. If you link to a release history there is some chance to clarify(communicate) what a particular date means. SunCreator (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a source of editing-warring in only a few articles (it certainly doesn't occur in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "Paranoid Android"), and I don't see how creating a redundant link to an article section the best possible solution, since linking to a release history table with various dates and formats with no context is not inherently illuminating. In contrast, note how WikiProject Albums simply mandates that the earliest release date be listed in the infobox. if there's debate about the release date in the infoxbox, either remove the field or the box entirely (since infoboxes are not mandatory) until the debate is solved. The emphasis should be on prose anyway. If people are arguing about the infobox, they aren't looking at the article as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Albums are simple by comparision. Yes, not every song is effected, only those since the beginning of the digital era(c2005), with most war edit-warring on the new ones just out or about to be available to buy. SunCreator (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would rather keep the release date as agreed in the previous conversation's consensus "the earliest date you can purchase the single, with exception to songs exclusively released in the US where it has been made explicitly clear that the song is a single but it was only released to radio." Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Question. Surely if it is only released to radio it would fail to meet the criteria of being a "single?" --Richhoncho (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of 'single'. A single in the old days was a physical record you could touch. In the digital era we are having more difficulty with the definition. The UK Singles chart includes sales of album tracks. So you therefore could say a digital album track is a single. The Official Charts Company certainly imply this OCC info pack (zipped acrobat), as they include digital album tracks as singles. Perhaps Billboard has a similar documentation for a definition of a single? SunCreator (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a circular issue which in short amounts to. It's a single when it's released. It's released when it's a single. Kinda catch 22, because one is defined in terms of the other.

There is another layer of complexity which I think has to be unravelled. We distinguish between songs and singles, because we have the {{infobox single}} and {{infobox song}} to work out. Yet, I think this is misleading us. Each article is about a song - we often has this in the titles Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) for example, yet we try and establish if it's a single in order to conclude things like it's single release date, yet in fact the article is a song and a song can be released whether it's a single or not. SunCreator (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A single is a single if it is described as such by reliable secondary sources. It's that simple. Also, many proper singles still receive physical releases; the old definintion of a single hasn't been rendered completely obsolete. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Would charting in a national singles chart be a reliable secondary sources to show it is a single? I think it would, that would be a completely different to the way it's been done at present. What would be it's release date of something that charted only on album track downloads, the date it charted or the date the album was released? SunCreator (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The simplest and best solution is to find sources that describe a song as a single and explicitly note its release date. I would advise against listing a song as a single just because it charted on the Uk Singles Chart, as that can be too much of an assumption and can border on original research. Always err towards the sources that say something to the effect of "this song was released as a single on this date". If you can't find anything that definitive, don't take a chance; just don't list the information. Also, if something "charted only on album track downloads", it's not a single unless described as so; by defininition an album track is not a single. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe by definition a digital album track is a single according to Official UK Charts Company, but that aside, I can see we would not be getting a WP:RS in some cases so some of the songs we currently have as singles would no longer be singles at all - would effect digital only releases the most. SunCreator (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the pdf file you linked above (very interesting, thank you) in the UK (probably pretty similar the whole world over) all songs should/could be listed as potential singles when they are available for individual digital download and this ties in very nicely with release dates too, but from a marketing POV it seems all hits are singles and all songs are misses. Wearing a marketing hat I like the concept, however artificial it is, but as a Wikipedian it doesn't help at all. For infoboxes I am not convinced with radio release dates, and I note some of the regular sources no longer list release dates (unless Music Week/Billboard still do it for subscribers only). You could take the view that the release date is when it is first available to the general public as an individual digital download - because it is a single at that point, and I don't think when the marketing department gets behind a song is encyclopedia relevant. I also think that anything that is in the infobox as standard should be available and verifiable in every instance. All in my opinion etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the song "that's what friends are for"

the song is stated on wikipedia to have been written in 1982. Then how come BJ Thomas released it as a single in 1972 as shown here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/B.J._Thomas ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.240.103 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it IS the SAME song, or different songs that happen to have the same title. Here's some more That's What Friends Are For (disambiguation).—Iknow23 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It must be a different song, Bacharach & Sager didn't start writing together until the 80s. There are 12 songs with the same title in a search at Ascap. Unfortunately, Ascap, BMI and AMG don't list a song with this title for BJ Cole. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Writer credit for B.J. Thomas' single is "Williams", so it's not the same song. Abrazame (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cha-La Head-Cha-La

Would someone please assess a rating for this article or direct me to someone who can. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done SunCreator (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The_Beautiful_People_(Marilyn_Manson_song) reassessed for GA SWEEPS

This article has just has its GA status reassessed as part of the WP:SWEEPS; the article was found to have substantial problems, especially in the matter of referencing and Lead layout. Given the substantial nature of these deficiencies, the article has been failed immediately as it is felt that the necessary improvements required to meet the GA criteria will not be made within a 7-day grace period. However, as there has been some (minor) activity on this article recently, and because it is listed under 3 WikiProjects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed and resolved within 7 days, I will undertake an immediate GA review to re-list the article. The reassessment review can be found here. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this matter. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Singles release date is when FIRST being SOLD as a Single, NOT Radio Airplay

This issue keeps popping up. so need to bring it here.

Radio is not a release date, see example Video Phone (song) U.S. radio on September 22, 2009 but "Released November 17, 2009" in infobox & "Release history" section. Also in infobox = "Format CD single, digital download". Sending to Radio is PROMOTION prior to release as a Single and does not constitute 'creating' it as a Single. I'm sure that there are MANY MANY MANY songs (Promotional Singles) sent to Radio that are ignored. Due to the failure of this 'promotion' the Record labels probably decide to cancel their plans for the Release of such songs as a Single (SALES). If they are never sold as a SINGLE, I don't call them a single. Radio PROMOTION dates can be mentioned in the article Lead as background info leading up to the Release as a Single or the failure of such release.

A Single is the way that the song is sold

It is Not a single while only being sold [commercially released] as an ALBUM track. When sold as a single it will have a different release date than the album.

Example of Release date for an Album, Kiss & Tell

Per the Lead Performer, Selena Gomez at http://www.facebook.com/Selena?v=feed&story_fbid=137239266694 "album comes out next Tuesday September 29th...the record release party that night as well!!!!!!!!" The record release party is to celebrate the SALES release of the Album. Please note that the release party was not held on Friday, September 25, upon the completion of the PROMOTIONAL play at Radio Disney.
Do I make any sense here? What does everyone think?—Iknow23 (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always kept in mind that release dates are physical release dates, ie the song being sold for download, or physical singles. Airplay dates are never true indication or knowledge from when the song was commercially acceptable since most of the radio DJs play songs on their own accord inspite of the song being not added on their playlist. Hence release dates should always be earliest physical or download release date. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Referring to whether airplay release dates should be included in release history, on GA's such as LoveGame and Already Gone airplay dates are included in release history. Also Radio Disney is promotion for Disney, and is not compared to standard radio stations. As for the Blah Blah Blah discussion, "The add date (set by the artist and their people) is a "push" for radio stations to add the song to their playlist for rotation" -- can be compared to the date set by the artist and their people to purchase by digital download or a CD single. With that said, both sales and airplay contribute to position on charts, so should be represented equally. One more thing, for the Eh, Eh, article referred to in the Blah Blah discussion, I agree that the case would be different when the info box becomes lengthy. And yes, songs do not have to be singles to chart these days, but they can also chart soley on airplay also, (ex. Try Again). I think there are very few cases in which radio singles are not release as physical/digital singles. Try Again is one of the only that fall into that category, and even it was eventually released physically. Also it remains to be released to radio only, then that's just presumably a promo single. Candyo32 (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The release date is when is should be available for sale to the public. Quite rightly it has nothing to do with the date of recording, circulation within the record company, promo copies to radio stations, played on radio stations (or youtube etc), or, indeed, copies to the artist's friends and family. Music Week in the UK used to print the official date in its list of new releases, I daresay Billboard did/does likewise. It's just the same as any other manufactured item - when Joe/Josephine Public can get his/her hand on the product is the "release" date. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the release date should be the date it's available for sale to the public. I don't really have a problem with airplay release dates in release history sections of an article, but for the infobox, the release date should be the first date of sale, and in the singles chronology part, the year should be the year it was available for sale, as sometimes songs go to radio the previous year especially for singles released early on in the year. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In such a situation when the album digital is available prior to the single, the single release date is not the date it's available for sale publicly because the public can buy it from the album. SunCreator (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the date it's available for sale as a single, not as an album track. My main point is not to use airplay release dates. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Iknow23, you make sense, but I am not sure what the question is. So here are some thoughts about 'Release date':

1. 'Release date' is very ambiguous. It could mean(in random order): airplay release date, album digital release date, physical release date, promotional release date, video release date, album physical release date, digital release date
2. Release dates can vary between different versions, i.e normal, radio edit, album, remix etc can all have different release dates.
3. Release dates vary from country to country. As an example: UK digital release dates and Irish digital release dates are almost always different.
4. - Combine the above three things together and you could end up with over a 100 or so different means for what a 'release date' is.
5. Release dates have no logical order and this is not obvious. For example the airplay could come before or after the physical release. The album digital release can be before or after the download release; the video release date can be before or after digital release etc
6. Release dates are a common place of edit wars on song and single articles.
7. Release dates are difficult to source correctly. Media and sources, say 'release date' often leaving it open what type of 'release date' is meant.
8. Release dates as used in infoboxes are mostly not referenced.
9. Release dates found on wikipedia are often incorrect.
10. Release dates of a digital release in particular tend to throw up confusing situations.
11. Release dates and to buy dates are often different, bring confusion to the general public and wiki editors alike.

If there is something more specific, I am happy to comment again. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree: for the most part, the earliest date you can purchase the single. But not for the U.S. as airplay is usually the only format it's officially released to as it's available for download on the album. So for the U.S. I think airplay release should be as valid as buying the single. The same if it's released in the U.S. first. Jayy008 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for the US, airplay goes to making up the Billboard Hot 100 and other charts. SunCreator (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What some people do not seem to understand is that, a 'release date' does not include airplay. A release is usually the event at which an album or single is first offered for sale in record stores, or in the situation today, digital outlets as well. A radio station or network can play any song at their convenience.. Even leaked songs from time to time. Does that make it released? The radio add date is worthy of mention in the article, but it is simply unnecessary to associate it with a release date. • вяαdcяochat 21:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the release date is when you can buy/download a single. Allowing the inclusion of airplay as a release date will confused the matter because like the comment above radio stations can choose to solicit a song and play it to radio when it leaks before it is even announced as a single. However i think there needs to be guidance on the subject. For example "Up Out My Face (Remix)" by Mariah Carey was sent to radio stations on Jan 26, 2010 and will be released mainstream radio on Feb 16. Even though it has been called a single and her website is even promoting this I changed the release date to Feb 3, 2010 which is when you can buy the music video. Also in the US artists tend to release radio only singles, therefore under those circumstances the radio airplay date = the release date. I am under the opinion that if a digital download/CD single date is available it should prevail as the release date over the radio airplay release. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally disagree, especially since songs are released as promo radio-only singles as Lil-unique1 noted. I see the point that DJs can begin playing songs as early or late as they want to, but that does not disguise the fact that record labels actually do send out singles to radio on certain dates. If a song is released to radio before it's released to retail and the radio release date is known, the first date (which would be the radio date) should be used. –Chase (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors, The 'Released' date in the infobox often has "(see release history)", thus for consistency within the article it should MATCH the earliest date shown in the "Release history" section. So, if 'Radio airplay' is our ultimate consensus than Sales release is deprecated and not to be shown in the infobox.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case I would prefer to see airplay removed from both the infobox and the release history section (which is actually a discussion I started somewhere recently but I don't think I got any replies). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The PROMO Single is given to Radio in the hope that it will generate interest/demand for a Sales Single or the album on which it appears. But if it is NEVER sold as a single, does just the virtue of it having a Radio add date, mean we must forever classify the song as a Single? And the radio add date can be shown in the article Lead, repeating that I'm not trying to say that it cannot be mentioned at all.
I have witnessed reluctance in naming Radio dates as 'release'. Examples:

• Video Phone (song) "It was sent to U.S. radio on September 22, 2009."
• Telephone (song) "It officially impacted U.S. radio on January 26, 2010."—Iknow23 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Airplay is important in the US because airplay converts to sales. Something like 1 sales for ever 10,000 listeners(not sure the real figure). While in the rest of the world(Canada?/Mexico?) airplay does not count for anything - sales only come when someone direct pays money for a single. So in the US, release date can be no later then airplay, but elsewhere in the world that does not apply and no one cares about an airplay release date.SunCreator (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that Airplay is important to sales worldwide and not just in the US. And a song doesn't have to be a single to be sold or even Chart. I am in the US but I'm not going to cut the Record companies any slack. They can still release a song in the US as a Single by 'digital download', like Tik Tok (song) "...the song was released digitally on August 7, 2009 and was sent to U.S. radio on October 5." In cases where the Album comes out first and it is known as an Album Track, they can still release it as a 'digital download single' with a date different from the Album release. Perhaps the Record companies are thinking 'why bother? If someone wants it they can just go to Amazon or iTunes and search it. As long as they buy it, what do we care if they buy it as an INDIVIDUAL Album track? We get the same amount of money either way, right?' The Record companies might even prefer for these recordings to appear at the download retailers as an Album track because it helps to emphasize the Album that it is on and may generate interest in the Album to the point that the visitor will listen to ALL the samples from the Album. If the visitor likes what they hear, they may buy the Album! Great for the Record company...just converted a ONE album track sale to a FULL ALBUM SALE!—Iknow23 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chase. Even though I could let the date in the infobox slide, the release history table should include airplay release dates. Airplay has just as much impacts on U.S. charts as singles sales. Just like a song can chart solely due to digital downloads, they can chart only due to radio. Candyo32 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So the release date we should display is chosen by what causes it to chart? A song can be a single without charting, so it wouldn't show any release date then? —Iknow23 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

From the point of view of another music market, in Greece singles are often released as radio only, but still have music videos and the whole shebang. The only time a song is usually available as a digital download or physical single is if the album is not out yet. On top of that, currently there is no official singles chart in Greece (there is airplay however), so the number of buys of a song doesn't really matter. Labels focus on selling the albums which they see as more profitable. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused at the point you're trying to make. If a song charts without being a single, then it wouldn't show a date then. But most songs that chart that are not singles usually do not have enough information to stand as an article anyway. And I don't get what you mean by a release date can cause it to chart, but only airplay can cause it to chart, just like digital downloads, if that's what you mean. Candyo32 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited it above to be more clear. But as to what you just said, "If a song charts without being a single" then the 'Infobox song' template would be used instead of 'Infobox single'.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion is split into two, whether the release date should be the earliest, that being radio or single/digital download, and if airplay date should be included in release history. Personally, I'm on the fence with the infobox debate, however I prefer that the earliest date, including airplay. However I am totally in favor and think that the airplay release date needs to be included in the release history. I'm still a little off on the first point about the song thing, so I know the Infobox song would be used, so why would it have a release date? If that is what you meant. Candyo32 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My point was that so much emphasis was being placed on Charting and that the Release date is not dependent on Charting at all. (Unless it charts as an Album track, so the Record company decides to Release it as a single.)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree, I'm not saying something about placing an emphasis on the relationship between charting and the release date, just the fact of releases. Candyo32 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) It seems that we've gone off topic. This isn't about what release causes a song to chart, it's about the earliest release, which we are to go with per Template:Infobox single. In many cases that is the radio release. Many times radio stations give songs unofficial spins (recent examples would be "Telephone" by Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and "Blah Blah Blah" by Kesha and 3OH!3). However, often times record labels send out singles to radio for airplay. That is technically considered a release, in my opinion. –Chase (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. I think that sales and airplay are just as equal. Like I said here, songs can be played via unsolicited radio, but the label/artists set dates for which the songs officially go for adds, which should be included, and can be compared to setting a release date for digital download. But another dispute was about should the airplay date should even be included in the release history, which I think it absolutely should. Candyo32 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that like I previously stated, when a song has been added to radio, that should not be included as a release. Some of you are completely forgetting what a 'release' is actually defined as. Airplay is not included. A radio add date is part of the promotion for the song. Is it worthy to mention this in the article? By all means yes it is, however it is only necessary to place the date of when the song is first available for sale in the release date field, and history table. • вяαdcяochat 05:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. User:Liquidluck and I have always left single release dates as the release of the digital single or the CD single because airplay does not make a single. Airplay doesn't even make a promo singles for various reasons. Let's take songs that receive airplay on Radio Disney to promote upcoming albums, more specifically the album Hannah Montana 3: eleven of fourteen songs received airplay on Radio Disney and having almost the entire album as singles seems ridiculous. In fact, right now, the article has songs that were not released as singles under the single list but once I get to that article I will correct it. -- 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems we require to break this discussion in sections somehow. I note in the above discussion there is even differing definition of what constitutes a 'Single' . So sorting this out could take a while. SunCreator (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

About the Radio Disney thing, that is different because Radio Disney is not like standard radio. They don't play just only singles, they play songs, that is to why a Radio Disney date would be able for all songs on the Hannah Montana 3. So it can't be compared to regular radio. Candyo32 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus vote

I must protest the spitting of the two areas. The infobox must MATCH with the earliest date shown in the 'Release history' section for consistency within the article. Indeed, many many infoboxes have links to '(see Release history)'.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

OK use the space below to vote (and only vote) for the consensus about INFOBOX dates.

• Suggestion 1: Infobox release date should equal the first digital download / CD single date (not including album's release date for radio songs)
• Suggestion 2: Infobox release date should the first date (doesn't matter if its airplay/download/cd single) see my example and vote below

• I vote Suggestion 1. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I support Suggestion 1, the first date of sales as a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I support Suggestion 1 (though don't forget there are other physical formats – vinyl, cassette, etc) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion 1 assuming that means the album's release date if the song is only a radio single. If not, then Suggestion 2. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What's a "radio single"? -Freekee (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above in the discussion. In Greece songs are usually released as "radio singles" without digital download or physical releases. They are just available when you buy the album (in part or whole) and are regular singles other than that (have music videos and the works). Only if the song is a single from an album not yet released does it surface as a digital download single or physical single. Greece does not currently have a singles chart other than airplay. If it were suggestion 1 that passed, then there would be no release date in the infobox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

that's not true because for a Greek artist the radio date would be used and in that case their could be an exception.Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, so we need to define these exceptions now. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me that "radio singles" not being sold as singles are actually Album tracks.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if "radio singles" exist in the U.S. although. Most physical/digital singles are the ones released to radio.Candyo32 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't 'reclassify' a song to be a 'single' until it is sold as such. The date of First sales as a single is the Release date as a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No they are singles and are classified as such by IFPI and include music videos and the works. This isn't the US wikipedia, so we have to take into account the traditions and workings of other music industries. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to official sites that discuss the classifications? I'd be interested as to how they do it.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Take "I Kardia Sou Petra" by Elena Paparizou. It was not released as a dig download or physical other than purchase from the album. Sony Music says To νέο single από το άλμπουμ λέγεται Η Καρδιά Σου Πέτρα. (the new single of the album is "I Kardia Sou Petra"). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, as in most things in life, there are variances and exceptions. I see at "I Kardia Sou Petra" the chronology displays it as a 'minor' single. I guess because it is only a 'radio single'? I see that her Discography has THREE types of singles noted. These are 'Domestic singles', 'International singles' and 'Full singles discography, Songs released as radio singles.' Seeing that gives me an idea. The 'country of origin' always has a special significance so I PROPOSE that for these SPECIAL instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that we split the Release shown in the infobox. First row to display 'Released DATE' Second row '(Domestic, Radio single)' Third row 'DATE', Fourth row '(International [or Regional, whichever seems more appropriate], Digital download, CD'. What do you think of this?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of the release history is so that the infobox is not cluttered with dates. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, as I noted above, we editors discussing the release date don't even have the same definition of what a single is. Hence the confusion! SunCreator (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion 1 - this is what it is; and what a 'release date' means in the UK music industry press. You can't actually change it. To do otherwise it like labelling an apple an orange. SunCreator (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I vote Suggestion 2 Candyo32 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will support Suggestion 1, as a song is only defined to be released when first made available for purchase as either a CD single or digital download. • вяαdcяochat 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will support Suiggestion 1 as per my explanation above. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Release History Table

• Suggestion 1: Only include digital download, CD single, vinyl, etc.
• Suggestion 2: Include airplay release dates also.

• I vote Suggestion 2 Candyo32 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I support Suggestion 1, the first date of sales as a single. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion 2 first date that the song is released in its capacity as a single. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I Support Suggest 2 for the release history.Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I really don't mind either way, but I reackon if the single impacted the US then it would have an airplay date so it would be sensible to add it. If it had no impact in the US then there may not even be an airplay date to add. SunCreator (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I Support Suggestion 1, simply because a radio add date is alternate to a release date.. • вяαdcяochat 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion 1 obviously. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I support Suggestion 1 here as well. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Airplay in the United States is arguably the biggest format for music so if a song is just released there or released in the US fist then airplay should be included as the first date because some songs aren't even released as a separate download, so what would be the release then, this argument would suggest it doesn't have one? For example if option #1 is voted, I will change H.A.T.E.U. by Mariah Carey to a "song" rather than a "single" infobox wise because if airplay doesn't count as a release, then song was never released, so the song wasn't a single. Jayy008 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Simply dispense with release history tables. I find it odd that so many newer pop song articles rely on them so heavily. They aren't mandatory, so if you are having a hard time organizing them, don't use them. In fact, I'd only recommend using release tables under rare exceptions when prose does not suffice. And if you do use the table, don't list the airplay add date, because radio stations (particularly in America) add records to their playlists in a fitfull fashion, and it's nigh-impossible to verify who played it first unless there was some exclusive debut of a song. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion 1 Physical release dates are much easier to verify. For instance, MusicRow.com has a calendar listing when every single is de facto released, even if it's already on the charts by then. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Physicals are almost dead already. In the UK 98% of song/single sales are now downloads. It's the downloads which brings up new issues which causes us to restructure our thinking. SunCreator (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

PROPOSAL

Based upon discussion above and realizing, as in most things in life, there are variances and exceptions:

Take "I Kardia Sou Petra" by Elena Paparizou. It was not released as a dig download or physical other than purchase from the album. Sony Music says To νέο single από το άλμπουμ λέγεται Η Καρδιά Σου Πέτρα. (the new single of the album is "I Kardia Sou Petra"). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I PROPOSE that for these SPECIAL market (country or region) established practice instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that are NOT AVAILABLE INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ALBUM, that we split the Release shown in the infobox. First row to display 'Released DATE' Second row '(Domestic, Radio single)' Third row 'DATE', Fourth row '(International [or Regional, whichever seems more appropriate], Digital download, CD'. The Release history section in these SPECIAL market instances would show the Radio Airplay info.
PLEASE, Agree or Disagree.

Agree - of course.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree- Example is not much of an exception, that's kinda normal. I would guess 10% of the UK chart is like at any one time. (Kesha feat 3OH!3 - Blah Blah Blah, Gaga - Telephone, Rihanna – Rude Boy, JLS – One Shot] Most of them end up being released as a single later, but some don't. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Well I strike out the above until I work out what you mean, cuz it seems cloudy at the moment. SunCreator (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal (Just a few changes)

• Comment again Disagree with that, one release then "see release history" is enough. The only variation I suggest for Russia, Czech, Slovakia if they have radio dates? Then they should be included as radio is their only format. For the United States I think that Airplay should be included and to make sure it flows correct, if this happened to be the first release and goes in the infobox so be it. However for EVERY country that has Digital/CD releases it should have only those in both the infobox and release history. So what I propose:
  

1. Digital/CD release ONLY Official Physical or Digital release in infobox and release history for all the reasons stated above basically agree with the conclusions except for countries which only have radio releases (Slovakia - if those places have official release dates) or rely on airplay mainly sometimes only (United States) otherwise you could say because airplay doesn't count "this was never released as CD or Download, the page should be deleted." However if the song is released for separate download in the US that release should be the only one used, if the Airplay release is first, that should be shown first if it's released in the above countries first.
   
2. Other suggestions above completed, no exceptions.
   

I vote for #1 obviously. Jayy008 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Question Does 'Digital/CD release ONLY' include when the song is available from the album as a digital? SunCreator (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No no, I mean official Digital or Physical release. Jayy008 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me basically what I proposed, with the SPECIAL area variations, except you only want ONE release date showing in the infobox. The above ""this was never released as CD or Download, the page should be deleted" is not accurate. If it is notable, it could be converted to an infobox song and remain. As I stated way above, I do NOT grant United States similar exception. If the Record company can't be bothered to even set a Digital download SEPARATE from the Album track, it remains an Album track, not a Single.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agreed with it all with just a few modifications. One release date in the infobox is enough because it could just all be shown in the release history section. Well, that's not our place to decide, they do that because they try to encourage buying of the album instead of the single and since Airplay is one of the biggest formats so it should count, now all we have to decide is this. Jayy008 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not go the full way and put the release date in the release history also? SunCreator (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean too, both infobox and release history. Jayy008 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please everyone give the final votes on the last issue:

1. Special exception for United States because it effects chart postion equally.
   
2. No special exception for United States (Singles with only airplay release, changed to album cuts, not singles).
   
3. If the video is released to buy, use that as the release for United States. Seems not allowed.
   

I vote #1 Jayy008 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support #2. Also, if you look at wiki for Radio single, it redirects to 'Promotional recording' "distributed free in order to promote a commercial recording...usually sent out to music radio and television stations, music journalists and reviewers in advance of the official release date" < advance of Official release date means prior to as in the ADVANCED copies of albums. We don't consider the ADVANCED date there to be 'released' as we wait and use the 'first sales' date instead.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me to grant a special exception for the United States as it was intended only for SPECIAL market (country or region) established practice instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that are NOT AVAILABLE INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ALBUM. If the US gets the exception too, what's the point. Why not give it to everybody, in which case it is not an exception but the rule?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting way too confusing, but I support #1 Candyo32 (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a third option. Jayy008 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, adding another media format. Singles, songs are audio only and do NOT require a video. A video is a related but separate product. Of course it can be discussed in a "Music video" section but it can have a separate release date from the audio recording.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the use of a (See Release) button/link. Personally I don't understand why we even have a release date in the info box. Why not have it all in a Release table? That way you can add whatever you like in the Release table and make clear for example if it's the US release date, US Airplay date etc, there will be much less war editing this, as it's clear what it represents. SunCreator (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We are 'all hung up' on the term 'Release date'. Why don't we disambiguate it by instead using "Radio date" and "Sales date" (being the date of first sales AS A SINGLE, in this case).—Iknow23 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but do this in practice in a table in the chart section of the article not in the infobox. SunCreator (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I will support #2, as a radio add date differentiates from a release date. A release date refers to sales, not airplay. What is there not to understand? • вяαdcяochat 05:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A release date does not refer to sales. Sales can and often do come before it is released! SunCreator (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sales can and often do come before it is released!" Yes. Sales can occur as an individual Album track prior to release as a single. But we are talking about when it is released as a single to put in the Infobox single template.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

SunCreator, if I can make it any clearer for you, a release date refers to when the song is first available as a single for sale in a record store, or by a online digital retailer. That is regardless of whether the album is out or not. • вяαdcяochat

Okay, see where your coming from. So all Gaga singles should have the release date of the album it came from?

SunCreator (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that Bradcro said that. He said "first available as a single", not 'first available as an Album track'.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well you could be correct. I wasn't trying to disagree with Bradcro comment, but rather asking so that I could get clarification. SunCreator (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree SunCreater, that would seem this rule is going too far. Nobody seems to understand in America, a song could reach #1 if it was just released to radio, so because it is such a big format and sometimes the only one, changing songs to "album cuts" when we know they're singles just because they didn't get a digital release would seem ridiculous. Bradcro please take you're argument up the discussion, we've already determined that, it's just making it more confusing this section is JUST to decide if the US deserves special dispensation for the reasons I mentioned. Jayy008 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Release information table removed as it was just clutter and not being discussed anyway. Table moved to here if you are interested). SunCreator (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

^^^ Who made this?

Why not make a compramise? This doesn't seem like it's going to be resolved soon, why does it have to be audio? As Lil-Unique has been doing why not just have the date the music video was released to iTunes if the song is never released for download. That way Airplay never has to be in an infobox or release history again. Jayy008 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I did the above, it's not great, but an idea to stimulate thought. SunCreator (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe this has turned into such a lengthy discussion. Here is an easy process to follow as to determine the label's official release date for a song:

1. The song is already available for digital download through cherry-picking from an already released album:

-> The official release date IS the radio adds date for mainstream radio

2. The song is sent to radio BEFORE it's available for digital download

-> The official release date is the date it is available for digital download

3. The song is sent to radio AFTER it's available for digital download as a single

-> The official release date is the date it is available for digital download

Example for 1: Take "Imma Be" which has been available since May 2009. It was sent to radio on 15 December 2009. As in, the label wanted it to get radio play and digital downloads starting on 15 December 2009 - they wanted it to chart starting on that date. Example for 2: "Boom Boom Pow" was sent to radio before it was available on iTunes - but we say that its official release date is the day it was added to the iTunes store. Example for 3: "Tik Tok" was available on iTunes in August but not sent to radio until after that. Despite this, we say that its release date is in August, as that was when it was available for purchase. Chele9211 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree but nobody else seems to, everyone knows a song is a single and just because it doesn't get released as a separate download, in America radio counts as it's release day. I don't see the problem. Jayy008 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Chele9211, I assume your talking about the US? IF so I agree; however in the UK(Ireland and maybe most of the world), radio is irrelavant and has no bearing on the release date whatsoever. SunCreator (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not the UK. It also applies to Canada (what I've spelt out above) since CD singles no longer exist. In any nation where there still are physical CD singles, the release date of that physical single is its official release, in all other nations where CD singles are non-existant, the radio release date is considered the official release. Mind you I'm only talking about post-album release singles (case #1) Chele9211 21:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically for United States if a song has no download release then include radio release because that's the only one if it does have digital release remove radio release a simple solution (Even if it's first). For every other country no radio releases should be included. That's my last point, short, simple and it would resolve this issue. Jayy008 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I vote #1 Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been forgotten, purpose for exception not intended for US but for SPECIAL market (country or region) established practice instances of 'minor' or 'radio only' singles that are NOT AVAILABLE INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ALBUM. Remember this:

Take "I Kardia Sou Petra" by Elena Paparizou. It was not released as a dig download or physical other than purchase from the album. Sony Music says To νέο single από το άλμπουμ λέγεται Η Καρδιά Σου Πέτρα. (the new single of the album is "I Kardia Sou Petra"). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this is the wrong section to include this example, but Fall to Pieces (Avril Lavigne song) was radio only, no music video or actual single, just promo singles, what happens then? Some editors here seem to be very sure of how radio stations work... what with randomly playing songs they like 155.69.192.144 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't in the infobox singles list at Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album)?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone needs to remember WP:POLL, by the way. As for my opinion, I go with option two. "Release" is sales terminology. Airplay is irrelevant; consider any freeform college or pirate radio station can play any song from an album of their choosing. The whole point of commerical airplay is to spur sales of commercial releases, be they singles or full-length albums. Airplay is a promotional tool, not necessarily a method of release in of itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point raised by User:WesleyDodds, it's the quality of the points raised that count, not the number of people and how they "vote". Which brings me to my next thought. A "single" was historically a physical piece of plastic, and was regulated at different times, by the maximum number of tracks, maximum playing time, rpm, price and probably other reasons which I have long forgot. The reason for this was to protect the industry, not the record buyer. With the advent of the CD much of this would become historical, but there was still a physical release of the song(s). Now what I wonder, and I haven't seen it addreessed here, all (or at least nearly all) songs are released individually, whether they are a solo release or from an album, EP or other... which means all songs are singles (which appears to be the gist of the argument above). Now, what I wonder, is a song that is ONLY released digitally really "a single?" I am not sure. I suspect this is where the discussion should be at. This actually makes the discussion much easier - a single is the date of the physical release and all others are "songs" and should be listed by the date they are first available as a download. Radio promo dates are far too fluid to be a key item (not saying they can't be included in the text if referenced). I also note that all this information may be different for different terratories, which really makes it convoluted. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with User:WesleyDodds about it not being a vote. To answer your questions Richhoncho:

• There are Solo releases - and by that I mean they are released to buy as album tracks but at no time get an single to go with it. An example would be Stop Crying Your Heart Out another is I Dreamed a Dream(please ignore the fact it incorrectly has a single infobox(!))
• All songs are not singles. Firstly from a wiki point of view songs are not singles unless we have a WP:RS to prove it, secondly, in the UK at least there is a bunch of rules that prevent some tracks qualifying to be released - for example a track/song(and potential single) has to be less then 15 minutes in length to qualify for the UK singles chart.
• When you say "is a song that is ONLY released digitally really 'a single?' " - Some that are released digitally are clearly a single as that it how they are marked on iTunes and other retail sites. If you are talking about an album track only, then it depends on what definition you use.
• "a single is the date of the physical release". Not true because some digitals are clearly marked single so they are singles whether a physical exists or not. Physicals sales are rapidly ending, meaning that in the future there will be few if any physicals at all. Presently 98% of the UK's 3+ million a week song/single sales are downloads. Around 80-90% of songs/singles in the UK singles charts don't have a physical and many never will(not in the UK at least). SunCreator (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I quote from another post you made on this page, "Actually I believe by definition a digital album track is a single according to Official UK Charts Company,..." and while I agree with you there are always exceptions, that appears to be the current state of play. I tried to avoid comments about the future of physicals on the grounds that my balls aren't crystal, but physicals will continue to exist when their existance will help with chart placings - which is the primary reason for releasing a single in the first place. Physical releases obviously are related to the equipment people buy, and for some genres a physical release will remain a must for a few years yet. All in my opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I may email the OCC and get them to clarify what a single is. The physical seems to be disappearing at a very fast rate, I think some physicals will stay in the form of 7" Vinyl records and the CD disappear. All in my opinion of course. SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is pretty much where I came in, if we cannot define "single, "song" etc in the digital age, how we we decide what the relevant release date is? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)