Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Golden Lady

I see that the song Golden Lady was omitted from the list of songs for Stevie Wonder. Please add. February 3, 2011 174.103.223.34 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A New Starsystem Has Been Explored

The article A New Starsystem Has Been Explored has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The New Year (song)

The article The New Year (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, mention of notability was not able to validate with references searched theofficialcharts.com without finding the song.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Promotional Single Essay

Do stop this confusion, I have started an essay on promo singles. For those who wish to contribute do. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it entirely unethical that you started an essay and moved it to the main space before a consensus on the issue could be reached by the community within the project. Just my opinion Greekboy (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an essay in development. Just because you don't like its contents, which I might add is mostly made up of results from past WP:SONGS discussions, does not mean you can say it's unethical. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is when there is an ongoing discussion on defining what a promotional single is. The essay is essentially counteractive to the efforts to reach a consensus within the project, as it is an attempt to define it by your standards. May I also point out that as User:Lil-unique1 pointed out on User:Grk1011s talk page, current consensus claims that a radio date counts as a release date in absence of a purchase date for singles. This consensus would classify many songs as a single to begin with. Greekboy (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are and him are referring to a US radio add date, which was the result of a discussion here. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nick's Boogie

The article Nick's Boogie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin "Identical Music" Claim

What is the source for this claim? Is this original research? The notes are simply not the same as Led Zeppelin's Custard Pie, so I suggest deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Which article and/or article section are you referring to? I can't find it. Doc talk 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is in relation to the article on Smokey Robinson's Mickey's Monkey - I meant to put it on that talk page. Sorry everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So, you mean "Additionally, the Led Zeppelin song Custard Pie from their album Physical Graffitti uses the identical music, in the same key (A major), with a different lyric and without the distinctive chorus." It's unreferenced, it's clearly original research, and I'll remove it if you don't want to. Doc talk 16:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of No Vendrá

The article No Vendrá has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Head Like a Hole" for GA

I always wanted to nominate the article for one of Nine Inch Nails' first singles, "Head Like a Hole", for Good Article status. Can I do so? (Answer this question please.)'| () () `'/ I> (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, do that tommorow, or later than that, or the next week. '| () () `'/ I> (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Using {{Infobox single}} in B-side articles

The Infobox section says "Use {{Infobox song}} for album tracks and B-sides." Why suggest it for "B-sides" when {{Infobox single}} can be used which shows more information? Some editors have interpreted this as a requirement that B-side song articles not use {{Infobox single}}, and instead must use {{Infobox song}}. "Single" is defined as "(45rpm vinyl record)", both A- and B-sides qualify under that description. Single (music) does not differentiate between A- and B-sides either. The {{Infobox single}} fields A-side, Last single and Next single links are useful for B-side song articles to easily navigate the chronology. Replacing it with {{Infobox song}} only serves to remove this information, as well as the cover image which is also appropriate for the B-side of a 45. {{Infobox song}} contains the fields prev_no, track_no, and next_no, which are specific to albums, and usually inappropriate for 45s (A- or B-sides). Perhaps the Infobox section text should be changed from:

... you can use {{Infobox single}} for the singles. Use {{Infobox song}} for album tracks and B-sides.

to:

... you should use {{Infobox single}} for singles (A- or B-sides). Use {{Infobox song}} for album tracks.

CuriousEric^Talk 22:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That would seem to reflect current practice, judging from the B-sides listed in The Beatles discography#Singles and a few others I checked, like "Hey Hey What Can I Do". 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

AGREED. I edited my Proposal 2 just briefly above to more clearly include B sides. It is released (sold) at the same time as the A side. As long as such release is independent of the parent project. If the B side does not appear on an album/EP, it is a non-album single. And if it may not qualify for a Wiki article, it is still a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote the song?

I have seen both the artist's real name (e.g. Marshall Mathers) and their stage name (e.g. Eminem) credited as a writer. Which is the proper one to use? For example, The Way I Am (Eminem_song) says that Marshall Mathers wrote it, but Eminem produced it. To me, this is downright silly. Can we find a uniform way to credit the writer and producer? DanielDPeterson (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say to go by what the liner notes for the album/single say; but then that's just me. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

it should always be given as written in the album booklet. In general we refer to people by their legal name for songwriting and preferred name for producing. E.g. infobox would say producer=Eminem / writer=Marshell Mathers. However in the lead section it would be better saying something like ... "Eminem also wrote and produced the single". You can always check with ASCAP or BMI Repertoire too. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is up to you. I always use the stage name for writing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Songwriters are nearly always credited by birthname. On many of her singles, Lady Gaga is credited as Stefani Germenotta (birth name). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Often readers don't know artists' real names, so it is generally more helpful to use to use the stage name. But like I said, it is up to the editor. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst that is true User:Kww pointed out that it is the songwriter who earns the royalties and per the songwriting agenices such as ASCAP and BMI the legal situation is whatever name is listed in the album notes and at BMI or ASCAP. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is how it always is. Artists/producers are credited by their legal name in writing, proper name in production (i.e. Christopher Stewart is always credited in his legal name in the writers section, but as Tricky Stewart in production). On how to credit, I echo Lil's first statement. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it is good to know that the writer is the person and producer is stage name. I wasn't sure if there was an official way to write it. DanielDPeterson (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether readers know artists' real names or whether it is common practice to use stage names in one instance and given names in another. The fact is that infoboxes are for the most directly accurate data, so in the vast majority of cases what actually appears on the credits of the actual release is what is to be used there. The article text can say that the artist (as commonly known, in the case of Eminem or Lady Gaga, those names, and not their given names) wrote and produced the song even if they were credited under different names for the different aspects, but the infobox must indicate what is officially used. Wikilink the infobox use of the less-familiar name to the artist's bio (presumably under the stage name), and this will serve to educate some readers that they are one and the same.

Incidentally, the reason is that production credits are only relevant from a points structure regarding purchases of the recording, while writing credits are relevant from both the standpoint of purchases and commercial use (airplay, use in nightclubs or other media, etc.). Most recording artists start to copyright their songs under their full legal name before they become known under (or legally change their real name to) a stage name, and continue to use the original name so that accounting and payment of all of their writing/usage royalties will be unified.

However, although this explains why this is generally what happens, there is no editorial rule, as DanielDPeterson infers, that "the writer is the person and producer is stage name". The editorial rule is that we are to use what the official release uses, and someone who doesn't have access to the official release (or have a digital version that does not attribute the credits) should not be editing this aspect of the article. It's about the most reliable usage, and the official hard copy of the release and/or official copyright and/or official Billboard single review formal writer attribution is the source to determine reliable, official usage for the official infobox field. Abrazame (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well pointed out and correct, Abrazame. The only things to add are that official releases are often wrong; "producer" having the same meaning as "executive producer" in films in many instances, but there is little WP can or should do about that. For songwriters, just plain errors, these can be checked, for anything released in the US at ASCAP or BMI, where songwriters are listed under their legal name, not their stage name. In disputes BMI and/or ASCAP should be considered the definate answer as these list where the money should go! Unfortunately neither of these sites are fully up-to-date, nor are they the only PROs that songwriters can use. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On a related issue, I think it should be normal (ie unless there are really strong reasons not to - which I can't at the moment imagine what they are) to say who wrote a song and not just attribute it to the person who recorded it. Obvious, perhaps, but easy to miss. And probably very annoying if you wrote the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbax (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite. If nobody wrote the song then it can't exist! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Promotional single?

Previous Discussions

Talk:Dance_in_the_Dark#Promo_single.3F

Talk:Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)#You Lost Me next single not Woohoo

WT:Wikiproject Songs#Single release date is when FIRST being SOLD as a single

Notified by -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk]

Over the past month or so, there has been a disagreement on the page for Lady Gaga's "Dance in the Dark" on whether it is a regular single or a promotional single. The discussion is moving towards a deadlock with both sides not giving in. I am asking the community to weigh in on the issue. It would probably be best for those interested to comment here and this discussion should be about promotional single versus single in general, not specifically related to "Dance in the Dark"; that discussion can be had on the article talk page. Instead of summarizing the debate so far in what will probably come out as a biased account favoring my views, please review what we have so far: talk page discussion and definition of a promo single. Grk1011 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As per previous discussions on this talk page, US radio releases mean an official single release, CD singles mean an official release, but what about digital downloads? Calling a song a single because it is listed with "- Single" on the end of it at iTunes just won't work. What is the proper distinction? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the basis of the "single" argument is not just that iTunes has the word "single" in the title. Additionally, airplay is not really related to this discussion. The issue is if a song was released as a digital download only, separate from the album, on a date independent of the album, is it still a single from the album? My feelings are yes, of course it is. In the music industry today cd singles are becoming increasingly rare and digital is becoming the way to release a song. Grk1011 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You also have to factor in that so many songs from an album can chart just because of digital sales of their parent album. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, the discussion on the page speaks for itself. A few users are trying to make a promotional single something it is not per its definition, and push a consensus that never even happened. People also need to get out of the US/UK mindset when thinking of these things. Just because its the English Wikipedia doesn't mean it revolves around those countries. Single releases happen differently around the world. Regardless, all the points are in the discussion. It would be really helpful if the community could weigh in now. Greekboy (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not come here to continue the discussion on Dance in the Dark. This is about what a promo single is. The article on promo singles is out of date. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

After doing some investigating using Google Books to comb through Billboard archived editions, all hits for "promotional single" or "promo single" described a promotional single as being a recording sent to radio stations by the label, or handed out to DJs. In some cases the artist even filmed a music video for said promotional single, and other times it did not even make the album cut. None of the hits ever mentioned a promotional single as being classified as something sold commercially, but as something distributed free. These below quotes display that a promotional single and commercial release (single) are something separate:

"In 1976, "Love song" was issued as a promotional single only and was not commercially available, but was eligible to appear on the airplay-based AC chart", see here.
And a more recent edition for 2004 says "Currently a promotional single, "Hell in Paradise" will be commercially released June 29 by Mind Train/Twisted.", see here.
"...who notes that the promotional single also includes the original album version, as well as a live performance. A commercial maxi-single will be issued late.", see here
"...and will be issuing it as a promotional single Oct. 16.......McCants would like to ultimately release the CD single commercially to benefit the families.", see here.
And from a different publication "The recording originally had a trumpet solo at the end and that version was distributed for promotional purposes. But the trumpet ending was deleted when it was released commercially. The version on the U.S. "Rarities" LP is not the true original; the promotional single was in mono, so for "Rarities" Capitol Records simply dubbed the solo onto the stereo version of the song." See here

It clearly is not a promotional recording based on the fact that it was released commercially. Greekboy (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

sigh* The promotional recording page is out of date. Promotional singles are constantly sold online through iTunes. Look at Wait Your Turn, Sleazy (Kesha song), and Upgrade U. Instead of ignoring this because it renders your argument useless, accept the truth. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Prove it... I'd like to look at some sources as opposed to articles that exhibit the same sort of problems we are trying to work out here. Grk1011 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this is a discussion on what a promotional single is. I posted excerpts from outside articles to help the community come to a consensus on the issue. Instead, all you do is reply with some irrelevant comment about the page being out of date, and then list examples of other pages that may be potentially wrong as well. Please remember Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because it exists doesn't mean its right, and you can't use that in an argument. A mistake made 1,000 times is still a mistake. Unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion, like outside sources, please let the community respond instead. Greekboy (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant? lol! Sure, kid yourself if you want. They are not wrong and you are the only two who completely fail to understand. Your arguments makes little sense and have been struck down by many editors before me. And WP:OTHERSTUFF is nothing but an essay and is not prohibited in arguments. What sources call it a single? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If your talking about the UK the answer is Dance in the Dark was a single and not a promotional single. The official chart rules are found at http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-rules/. In the pdf page 8, exclusion 5.2 is says that any Promotional Products are not eligible for inclusion in the charts. As you likely know Dance in the Dark entered the UK charts on the week ending Dec 5, 2009(can be sourced to chart stats and Music Week writeup). No doubt that won't end the argument but thought it useful to at least point of the technical answer to the question from a UK perspective. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it won't. That makes no sense; the song was not released as a promo single in the UK and charted from digital sales of TFM. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

On the UK note... "Dance in the Dark" was most definitely not released as a single ... just like many other album songs that chart through digital sales of their parent album. An song made available digitally from the album is classified as a single by theofficialcharts.com. That's why JLS' "Eyes Wide Shut" is charting based on sales from the album (as an album track download) even though the single release is not till Feb 6. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the more important part is that The Official Charts Company classifies a promotional product as "Any promotional (free to consumer) physical product or digital product...", further solidifying the definition of it. So far there have not been any sources brought forward stating that a promotional single is anything other than something distributed free. Greekboy (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to blame record labels. The problem is that we know that some singles in the United States are only released to radio. And so do you count that as the label giving something for free? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not wishing to get too involved in this debate, but I can add the song performers do not get paid for radio plays in the US because it is considered advertising, so not only is it free to consumer, but a promotional "single" wouldn't generate any direct income for the artist. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, reading from Greekboy, ""...and will be issuing it as a promotional single Oct. 16.......McCants would like to ultimately release the CD single commercially to benefit the families.", see here.
&
the essay WP:Promotional singles, "The following conditions below make a song a single: Serviced to US radio with an official radio add date.

IMO radio is NOT a 'release'. It is promotion just as usage in movies, TV ads and shows, reviews, e-mail 'blasts' with download links to the song, etc. Note 'serviced' to radio or the other terms we have all seen 'going for adds' , 'sent to radio', etc. Since the industry does not call it a release how can we? Thus if it is not 'released' then it cannot be a single. I believe that sent to radio makes it a Promotional SONG for the parent album; thinking of it as a 'testing of the waters'. Putting the song's toe in to see how the airplay charts will react. If favorable then the label will see that it will be a good idea to RELEASE it AS A SINGLE for profit. Yes, this can occur prior to, simultaneously. or after the parent album's release. Release parties are when it is first being sold commercially, a celebration of now expecting profits from the work put in. And release parties are not held for just album tracks but are reserved for SINGLES and the FULL ALBUM itself. Technology advances offer no excuse to the record labels as they can 'release' a single via digital download INDEPENDENTLY of its parent album. I agree with Grk1011 below (and edited myself above) that a single's INDEPENDENT RELEASE may occur simultaneously with that of the parent album, and not just prior to or after. It is ABSOLUTELY easy to see it is independent if the date is different. If the date is the same, then one needs to look into it further. A separate listing as an album track 'stripped' from the parent album after the album is released does not make the album track a single. And the iTunes Countdown program just strips Album cuts out for 'pre-sale' to the album itself. As noted by Lil_℧niquℇ №1, these iTunes called 'singles' disappear after the parent album's release. Thus these cannot be considered a 'normal' or otherwise qualifying 'release' as they are only temporary. These remain album tracks unless an 'actual' release occurs.

Since radio is not a release (IMO), it is misleading and inaccurate for the articles with Radio only dates to report a date in the 'Released' field. It should have instead a link to a section titled 'Radio dates' or similar. The section should NOT be titled 'Release dates'. In cases of actual singles that whenever during their existence (as a promotional song or single) that has Radio date(s) that are wished to report, the Section title should reflect this additional NON-release date material; such as, 'Radio add and release dates'. While appearing in the same section as Release dates, I believe it is improper to commingle 'Radio dates' in the same table as 'Release dates'. A separate 'Radio dates' table should also be placed within the section to report the NON-release information. And the independent SALES release date is the one to be reported in the infobox 'Released' field, even if the Radio date is earlier, as Radio is not release. If the Radio date IS earliest and reported in a commingled table, how do you explain then showing the sales RELEASE date in the infobox, an item further down the table?

A question...Why isn't "Massive Attack (song)" listed as a 'promotional single' from Pink Friday? It was used to promote the album. The article text explains sufficiently that it was ultimately dropped from the album. However this occurred AFTER it had promotional use for the album.

A song, single or album does not have to chart in order for it to be a song, single or album. It may be very unlikely that a Wiki article will exist (for long anyway), but they STILL are songs, singles and albums.

A 'SINGLE' must be a defined term by some industry standard. The Record Labels (which are not disinterested third parties) must not be allowed to capriciously dictate that a single can be downgraded to a song, or 'Promotional single' such as in the case of not attaining desired chart positions (or charting at all). You can't just forget or say something hasn't happened after it already has! Especially if the downgraded 'song' has the same characteristics as 'singles' they do 'recognize'. Must have consistency. If both the same and one is called a 'single' why isn't the other? (unless neither truly are). <end rant, sorry some will know that I've been away for some time.> —Iknow23 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe "Massive Attack" is not listed as such because it is not included on the album. Therefore it is a "non-album single" because it was released, radio add date, mv, the works, but was not on Pink Friday. Candy o32 02:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is a single and can understand since it was dropped it later became a "non-album single", however it was used to promote the album. Since we are discussing 'promotional singles', I'd say that this also applies. So how to decide which one to call it? So we are saying that one of the qualifications for being a 'promotional single' is its appearance on the album?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'm really thinking boils down to the preposition. It is not a 'promotional single' on the album, but a 'promotional single' for the album.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've lost me. It was a single. Not with a promotional in front of it. It was a single. All singles are used to promote an album, but promotional singles don't receive the coverage or promotion that regular singles do. They also generally have a smaller release. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 04:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Going into more of what Cprice said, a promotional single is basically to promote that album ONLY, not to promote the song itself. An example is iTunes countdowns, its actually not about those actual songs, its building up steam for that album coming up. However, regular singles, such as Massive Attack get promotion, radio add dates, music videos, etc, on their own to not only promote the album, but the song itself. Candy o32 04:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ĈÞЯİŒ 1000 & Candyo32. Please continue the promotional single discussion in my Proposal 2 below & thanks.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the bolding above. I wanted to clearly show my additions and changes there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Perhaps this is more complicated than it needs to be. Perhaps we just need a simple defintion...

"A single is a song (sometimes with accompanying B-sides) which is released independently of its parent album. That release can either be through airplay (e.g. a radio add date sourced from FMBQ or MediaBase) or a commercial release through digital download or CD single. Either release is considered valid, providing there is some evidence that the release is independent of the release of its parent album (e.g. a separate listing on digital download websites, separate cover art etc.)."

I believe this would solve all issues as it removes the element of speculation. At the end of the day once a song is released the public generally consider it a single even if the label later decides its not her official single. It would mean that things such as "Raining Men" and "Wait Your Turn" would be considered official releases though... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a great start. Just some comments though for tweaking. Sometimes a single is released at the same time as the album (maybe with remixes too) on lets say iTunes. It's still a single even though it is the same release date. Overall, I think we need some sort of disclaimer that says that reliable sources may override our categorizations. Grk1011 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to add a note about a separate listing? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Songs are released digitally independent of the album everyday, but they are not singles. "iTunes Countdown Singles" to name on kind. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 12:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah obviously in that case you use common single cause iTunes countdown singles cease to exist after the album's release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty excellent start. User:Grk1011 also brought up an interesting point on the DITD talk. I agree with much of what has been written in the proposal. It would be nice to get more input from the community as well though. Greekboy (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Slightly modified the proposal's wording. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok we seem to have support for this because I don't see anyone else stepping forward to comment. On a side note, I'm concerned with your comment to Cprice Lil-unique where you stated that you don't even support your own proposal. I'd like to know, personal feelings and opinions towards the matter aside, what reliable sources and whatnot makes this proposal so bad? Grk1011 (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is terrible! Read promotional single. iTunes does sell singles. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you are making a random comment. Who said it doesn't? Stop referring to your opinion piece as if its the Bible all of the sudden. Grk1011 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. It mentions nothing about how a lot of digital only singles are just for promotional purposes. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So its relevance is? What do you not like about this proposal specifically. You keep making generalizations and unsourced claims without offering any constructive feedback. How would you like it to read? Grk1011 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want it to be like my essay: most or all the information is taken from the consensus of previous discussions. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources that you added to Promotional single are beyond wrong. Two of them are not even reliable sources as discussed on the talk, and the third does not specifically state that a promo single is something that is sold on iTunes, or sold anywhere else for that matter which you are claiming. It only says they released a promo single. No details on that release though. Does not mention radio, does not mention iTunes, nothing. Second, I don't know if you are familiar with how Consensus works, but previous Consensus can change. If there is compelling evidence brought against a previous consensus, then the previous consensus needs to be put aside to reach a new consensus. All of this is irrelevant though, since there was not even a consensus on this matter to begin with. That being said, this situation can not keep going on. If people do not wish to chime in, then I suggest putting out Requests for comment. Greekboy (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Greekboy says is not fact. You and him act like you both are the consensus most of the time. I have already replied on the promo single talk page. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I support the above proposal. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? That's saying every digital download separate from the parent album is a single, even though there are three contradictory sources on the promotional single article saying otherwise. Everything else in the proposal is fine, but any digital download separate doesn't work for everything. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much my question last time this was debated. "What is a single in the digital age?" I think this is the question to be answered before we can go on to answer further questions, including this proposal. As far as I can see there is no difference between a downloadable song and a downloadable single other than nomenclenture. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with "Either release (airplay or sales) is considered valid" then the problem arises with how to explain using the sales date in preference over the airplay date. I guess this does not arise with albums, the sales date is always understood as the release date. Even if 'premiered' on radio prior, I don't think anyone wants to use that for a release date.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The release date would be the first date of standalone release no matter the format. Grk1011 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Adapting from above

"A single is a song (including any accompanying B-sides) which is released (made available for sale) independently of its parent album or EP. That release can be through digital download and/or CD single snd/or any other means. The presence or lack thereof of promotional activity, such as radio adds, cover art, music videos, etc. has no bearing. It is a single based on the virtue of its independent release. However, this does not include iTunes Countdown to album/EP release 'singles' as they are merely album tracks stripped out for pre-sale to the album/EP."

Of course the promotional activity frequently occurs as a means to increase sales, but unnecessary to qualify for the term 'single'.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I still like WP:PROMOSINGLE. Once again, you say that digital downloads independent of the parent album are always singles. See Wait Your Turn. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(prior)I don't understand the need to call some singles 'promotional singles' just because they may have gotten less 'special treatment' or downgraded due to not getting the expected charting activity or sales? All singles promote their parent project, so as long as they are released independently I call them all just singles. With this approach there can be no dispute, whereas with the other...when to call em 'promotional singles' vs. 'singles'? I think that we are going off track by making things that we just usually see done as an actual part of the requirement. Example...every time I see you, you are wearing shoes. Then one day I see you without shoes. Well that can't be you anymore, it must be 'promotional you'. And just exactly where would the defining point to make it a 'promotional single' be? Which one promotional activity when absent makes it a 'promotional single'. And is this still the case if ALL the other promotional activity is present?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support this goes into much more detail and uses better terminology. I don't like the proposed essay because it has no basis to it. It has no proof essentially and its not an essay... its just a list of criterion. Promotional singles are already defined on wikipedia as promotional recordings which are given for free... we should avoid the use of the term promo singles as that is also the term for the CD which has the instrumental and normal version of the song sent to radios and DJs — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Free, unless they are given a small release to a digital market, which is also in the promo single article. OK, so my essay is not a real essay, but it is the best way for people to get the point quick and simple. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'essay' doesn't address the concerns the way this statement does. see this statement could be integrated into WP:SONGS. The 'essay' doesn't actually tell us what makes a single or a promotional single it just lists the characteristics of them and thus stands alone without any supporting guideline or policy. This statement on the other hand can be applied to countdown singles from iTunes because they are removed after the album's release. A limited release (a week or even just several days) by the definition above would not be a single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say that "Wait Your Turn" is a single. It hasn't been removed from iTunes.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Edited proposal to include the EXCLUSION of iTunes Countdown program.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Dance in the Dark is another example. Artists release songs to iTunes all the time but they are not always singles. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 04:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I say that "Dance in the Dark" is also a single. Singles can indeed be sold at iTunes, just the Countdown program ones don't count. The iTunes link is still active so it is still being sold as a single. It doesn't matter if it is a huge market or not. I agree with Lil_℧niquℇ №1 that we should avoid using the term 'promotional single'—Iknow23 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what this proposal is. Am I missing something here? No doubt in my mind are the songs you listed promotional singles. "Wait Your Turn" was released prior to the release of the album digitally only, while the other songs on the album were sent to radio, that's always been the difference. So what you're saying is that "E.T.", "Circle the Drain" and "Not like the Movies" are singles as well? "Mean" and "Speak Now" as well? ℥^nding·start 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably so but unknown at this time. Please courteously provide links to the material you wish me to review and thank you. Hmmm, just reviewed the section second next titled, "Using Infobox single in B-side articles". Wondering are you calling all B sides 'promotional singles'?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited above to Bold to emphasize a key point and point out an addition (added an example).—Iknow23 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited proposal from "A single is a song (sometimes with accompanying B-sides)..." to "A single is a song (including any accompanying B-sides)" upon review and consideration of "Using Infobox single in B-side articles".—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What you're proposing is absurd. No promotional singles? That would go against what labels and the artist say. A single is not a promotional single, that's why they both exist. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope I'm not blunt, but it is absolutely ludicrous to not a call a promo single a promo single. It is absurd to categorize an official single, such as "California Gurls", with a song that was released on iTunes to promote the album only, not the song itself, such as "Circle the Drain." Candy o32 02:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't even call the iTunes countdown program 'releases' or 'promo singles' or singles of any other kind. I call them 'pre-sales of album tracks' ONLY. I say that they 'were made available' but not 'released'.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not the only editor that has a problem with this usage of the term 'promotional single'. 'Promotional' products are give-aways (feebies) like keychains, ink pens etc. with your company advertising on them that can be given away at festivals, fairs and other events. Yes, CD singles, EP's and even FULL albums can be given away (promotional). But once officially sold, they are no longer 'promotional' but RELEASED as a SALES PRODUCT. The smaller sales product (single) can certainly be used to enhance general knowledge of a larger product (EP or album) but the smaller product is still being a subject of sales itself.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources on promotional single state otherwise. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your point. It seems to me that the link you give DOES support what I'm saying. promotional single, "For Promotional Use Only" meaning not intended for sale.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about putting it this way:

"Singles" are sales products. (requiring a 'Release (sales) date')
"Promotional singles" are NOT sales products. The 'qualifier' "promotional" removes the sales requirement. It this case the word 'singles' is ONLY to differentiate it from a larger item not produced for sale; such as "Promotional EP's" and "Promotional albums".

Terms should be able to be applied across the spectrum and not just be limited to 'singles'. Terms must also allow for items that may not qualify for wiki articles but that do certainly exist.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus 'promotional singles' that are available for purchase independently of their parent project (if any) with the exception of iTunes countdowns are a contradiction in terms. Upon its 'release' (being sold) it converts to being just a 'single' period.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. All arguments against it are once again original research and if there are sources, they are about other songs then synthesized to support the categorization of a completely different song. As for "Dance in the Dark", I still haven't seen a source calling it a "countdown single", so there is no argument there. Additionally, reliable sources in most cases will almost always allow for there to be room to show some judgment. This proposal seeks to define the general terms. If certain songs mentioned above are special cases so be it, but their special cases shouldn't be used to redefine established industry terms which already have a known meaning. Grk1011 (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, how can you say that a countdown single is not released when it is put on iTunes for sale? I fail to understand the big hullabaloo over release dates and radio. Songs get radio add dates for the reason, not just solely for promotion. If not, labels would just be like "play our songs." Candy o32 12:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Right in the promo single article, iTunes and other markets have recently began distributing promotional singles for a price separate from their parent albums. And Grk1011, you and Greekboy seem to not understand what WP:SYNTHESIS is. Synthesis is joining together two sources that state different things about one topic in order to come up with a conclusion that is not mentioned in either sources. The sources on promo single support that iTunes did distribute a promotional single. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Who called it a countdown single because sources haven't. It's just a single released before the album. Is Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" also a countdown single then? Grk1011 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you blinde? The source says "Do It Like This" is a promo single on iTunes. The BTW question is ludicrous. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So maybe that song is a promotional single, but what source says that all are that are similar? Grk1011 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Applying industry specific terms differ from everyday meanings. Such as 'single'. Everyday word means ONE. Industry term can mean 'two' as in A and B sides. And don't think of it as a single piece of vinyl (historic) because EP and LP's are also a single piece of vinyl. Radio just is not called "Release." If not released for sales, sent to radio ONLY makes those 'promotional songs' or 'promotional singles'.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember 'Release parties' are to celebrate the commencement of selling. 'Sent to radio' does not get a 'Release party'.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(reply to Candyo32) I call a countdown single 'available' instead of released as Lil-unique1 points out that these are only temporary products available for a limited time.
Regarding..."labels would just be like 'play our songs'." No, just random like that will have less effect on the charts, so they request a specific date that they would like all the stations to start playing such-and-such song. This combined effort can possibly generate greater charting success.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, radio add is release. This was settled a long time ago [[1]]. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 12:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Release and Release date

To my limited knowledge, "Release" is a V-E-R-Y specific industry term, meaning 'available for sale'. It doesn't matter if this is physical and/or digital and/or any other means available now or in the future. It doesn't matter if the item charts or has any sales at all, it is still released as of the Release date.
I believe that Wikipedia should always use correct terminology and use it correctly for any subject matter. Thus if we say 'sent to radio' we have done our job. It doesn't matter if the average reader converts that in their mind to 'released to radio'.
Section headers such as 'Purchasable release' are a redundant term. "Release history' will suffice quite fine. Has anyone ever seen the industry say 'Purchasable release'?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Release date thus is the first date available for purchase anywhere in the world, not necessarily your country or region. And the item still has been released even if never in your country or region. iTunes Countdown to album/EP programs do not qualify as they are merely album tracks stripped out for pre-sale to their parent album/EP.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

edited to discuss iTunes—Iknow23 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been actually merging the two together for some articles I've found. I find it unnecessary as well, having two sections. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about or wanting done here though. ℥^nding·start 03:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to set up a basis for understanding Release and Release date does not mean Radio. Radio is promotion, not release. Thus it is improper to commingle them in a single table, as apples and oranges.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to get rid of the inclusion of radio add on dates? ℥^nding·start 03:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I mean it is fine to include the material if reliably sourced (as always), just don't call it 'release' by mixing it in a table with release dates.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you somewhat. But a radio date still shows a single release. I'm a bit confused about what you mean (still). ℥^nding·start 03:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is radio usually accompanies a single release (prior, simultaneously, or after) but is not a requirement to be a single. The independent sales from the parent project makes it a single, with the exception of iTunes countdown to parent project releases. It that case they are just pre-selling album tracks and not true singles.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is such a big problem with just putting them in the same table, they are similar enough, and it would cut back on space. It's not that hard.. Candy o32 21:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Iknow23's comment) Who ever said it was a requirement? It is a way for a song to be labeled as a single. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If that were the case what are we to do for songs like There Goes My Baby (Usher song), Love in This Club Part II, Until the End of Time (Justin Timberlake song), Slow Dance (song), which were singles not released for download, and only received radio add dates? Candy o32 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A release date is like any other raw data point, and raw data points in a table or infobox need to be verifiable beyond what we can be vaguer about in text ("debuted at radio" or "hit the charts on", if we don't know the actual commercial release date). As with any other raw data point, if you don't know what the release date of a single is, then you shouldn't be editing that data point in the article. It's not unlike the "recorded" section in the infobox, in that you don't have to fill it in with something just because it's there, or give the next-best answer or a guess, you're only supposed to fill it in if you have a reliable source that verifies the data point.

But I think the OP was feeling around for was the difference between commercial singles and promo singles. A single is a distinct commercial product unto itself, while a promo single has various reasons for being, generally split into two camps: 1) promoting the song to industry folk because you're testing the waters for a possible commercial release, and 2) funneling any commercial interest in the song toward album and ticket sales. Billboard relaxed its requirements to allow songs that are not singles to chart, and their charts are now not purely singles charts, but song charts (note the charts' names) meaning that since that change a charting song should not necessarily be considered a single if it has not been officially released as one. Official single releases are a commercially available product (that may have some days or weeks earlier been a promo sent to the industry), and the release date is the very first date of the commercial availability of this product (the single, as a single, not merely as an album track, and certainly not merely to radio), regardless of where that is. If a song is released to radio but never made available for sale as a single, then it is not a single, it is a promo single.

Again, it bears repeating: while we create articles about songs, and songs have for some years been able to chart without being given official release as a single, what singles are and have always been are products given a specific, focused commercial release distinct from any larger (EP, album) or smaller (ringtone) medium. We have different infoboxes for greatest hits albums than we do for live albums or studio albums, even though they all may appear on the same Top 200 Albums chart and can legitimately all be called "albums"; we should similarly have different infoboxes for official commercial release singles than we do for promo-only singles or songs that may or may not happen to chart, when the very charts had to change their names ("Hot Black Singles" to "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs") to acknowledge that they can not all legitimately be called "singles". Abrazame (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am confused to as how these three paragraphs relate to this discussion. Candy o32 02:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо's comment) You are saying that Radio add date is a requirement, when you say, "It is a way for a song to be labeled as a single."—Iknow23 (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Release means 'sent to market' for sale. Sent to radio means promotion, but not "release". I agree with Abrazame and had myself thought to mention about how Billboard has changed the chart names. We see "Radio songs" and not "Radio singles" for example. So any song that is not being sold but is heard on the radio has not been released (per the industry definition of the term 'release'). This in no way means that the radio usage is illegal; just different terminology applies, 'radio add date', 'sent to radio', 'going for adds', etc. But it is NOT RELEASE TO RADIO.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The way I keep it clear in my mind is the vinyl days. When a 45 rpm is made available for me to buy on March 28, 19XX it HAS BECOME a 'single' on that date (been 'released'). The "B" side is also a 'single' on the same date. A & B are being sold separately (independently) of any LP (album or EP) but can still appear on one. Whether this 45 rpm item receives any airplay or sales does not matter. IT HAS BEEN RELEASED AS A SINGLE.
I just utilize the same concept and update it for the digital age to include Music download that is independent of an album or EP.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Iknow23's reply to my comment) No, I am saying such makes a song as single. Why would I say it has to be released to radio to qualify as a single? That makes no sense. It can, but it doesn't have to be. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I thought that you intended "'Radio" to be the subject "It" in your sentence "It is a way for a song to be labeled as a single."—Iknow23 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says radio is just promotion? If radio were just promotion, and not a single release, then There Goes My Baby" wouldn't be a single. Candy o32 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Radio IS promotion. People hear the song. If they like it and it has also been released then they can go buy it. If it is released later they can buy it then. Radio is NOT sales of the song. Please re-read this section beginning. "There Goes My Baby" thus is a single released independent of the parent project by download on Feb 9, 2010 (true Release date). That is the Release history that is not even in the section so titled. It only shows Radio info there? A 'Release' doesn't have to be within any specific country or region to qualify. As long as it happens somewhere! (and not a part of just stripping out album tracks for pre-sale to the parent project, whether done by iTunes or anyone else.)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a 'test-marketing' can possibly be held for perhaps a month and then be withdrawn. If this is known in advance and during THEN it should NOT be called a 'single' because this is a 'limited-time release' that will expire. If it is unknown it IS a single until it is withdrawn; at which point then it can be realized that it is not a true single, but a limited time test. However this plainly is not the case with "There Goes My Baby" as the sales link is still active over a year later.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "TGMB" wasn't the best example, as it was released digitally outside the U.S., however there are several songs that have not received purchaseable release formats, as people simply download the songs as digital album tracks, removing the need for a CD/digital single release. See Candy's other examples above. Most (all?) singles released after an album's release do not receive independent digital singles in the US anymore, such as...say... Alejandro (song) – released digitally in many countries except the US, but only serviced to radio in US. However, I would suspect that Americans "view" the song as a single. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

But the first link for TGMB, was when it was a PROMO single, released as a countdown song on iTunes for Raymond v. Raymond. I feel as if we are going around in circles, and it is frustrating We have been for the past year on this same petty debate, and it seems as it was settled and now it has reared its head again. Therefore let me break it down again – In the US, CD singles are basically extinct, and a song cannot be re-released for download. In that case, labels send songs to radio, and we used the radio add date to identify them as a single, (i.e. Slow Dance (song) and Love in This Club Part II). Like Adabow said with Alejandro, all it had was a radio add in the US, it had no physical release. So like I have said many, many times before it would be ludicrous to say it wasn't a single. In closing, in the US market, when songs aren't physically released the radio add date should verify a single claim, no matter if it was cancelled or what because you how can you retract sending a song to radio, "limited release", how so when it is already out there? I understand that in international markets they still receive CD single, and easily you can identify the single, but that is not the case in the United States, which is why US radio add dates are used. Candy o32 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Alejandro does not depend on US radio to be called a single. It is actually released for sales in other countries. Just to be sure what you mean; EVERY song with a Radio add date IS a single as of that date? It would have to be a general rule that applies to all songs, not only those that really receive airplay or qualify for Wiki articles.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the point you're not understanding is that only singles get radio add dates. Its not just random songs. Sure any song can get airplay and be played on the radio, and chart from that. But only singles get radio add dates. That is the whole point. Candy o32 15:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Samples of Songs

Song samples on pages are typically random lengths. What's the reason for this? Can't we make them a standard 30-seconds? DanielDPeterson (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

per WP:Music sample there is a guideline depicting the exact length of music samples as they are non-free works. 30s is the maximum allowed size... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I figured this has/d something to do with copyright issues. I was just hoping to be able to switch to a more uniform style of samples. DanielDPeterson (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It does. It must be less than 10% of the song, and if the song is over 5 minutes then a 30-second max sample. I don't see why we should have a standard sample length. Also note that it must be of low quality - about 65 kbps. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Stats on music projects

See Table showing productivity/size of the 48 music projects for information about this project and other music groups. --Klein zach 07:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Help Wanted: List of Notable Songs

Hey songsbods!

I was just putting up a small request for anyone with some spare time and music love! I've just tidied the front page of the notable songs list, and I was hoping to get closer to killing it stone dead. However, a lot of it is far outside my own fields of expertise, and was hoping that some knowledeable souls might be interested in helping get this done.

If I ever pull my finger out, I may even make some sort of prize for being nice helpy types, although I'm newish and haven't tried this before...

Any help would be appreciated! Bennydigital (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling in films

In the 1986 Tony Scott's film Top Gun, Tom Cruise and Anthony Edwards sang it at the Aviators Club in Miramar to Kelly McGillis the day before the Top Gun program starts, "Maverick", assisted by "Goose", unsuccessfully approaches a girl by singing this classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.152.136.142 (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good To Be Alive

What can be done with this page? It has been around 2004, but it's an orphan and hasn't really improved. Peter Moulton (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of One Day at a Time (Em's Version)

The article One Day at a Time (Em's Version) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find support for the notability claim "charted at #80 on The Billboard Hot 100", fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Applying for a song's page assessment

Forgive me if this is isn't the appropriate place to discuss this but I'm new to WP:WikiProject Songs. I'm in the process of updating the singles for Hole, PJ Harvey and Imelda May and I'm familiar with how to submit an album's page for assessment, I done so with Imelda May's Mayhem but I'm confused on how to do it with song pages. I recently created/wrote the page for PJ Harvey's "The Words That Maketh Murder and spent a lot of time writing the article to meet Good Article criteria, basing it on Nirvana's "Heart-Shaped Box." Could someone inform me how to go about submitting a song's page for asssessment or even more helpfully, could someone, who has the authority to do so, assess the article? It'd be much appreciated! - Idiotchalk (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in on this - Faith No More's Stripsearch is currently unassessed as well. I'd say it's a stub, so is it kosher to just add that as the class or should someone "officially" judge it so? GRAPPLE X 22:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Chart notability

Given that an article for a song should be a significant hit on at least one music chart, where do we draw the line on what constitutes a significant hit? Top 10, top 20, top 40? I would imagine anything below this (on only one chart) wouldn't be significant enough. But perhaps it's time to consider where the line should be drawn - or perhaps it could relate also to number of weeks on the chart? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (Note- This post also has been included on the Notability (music) talkpage).

The chart itself tells us what is notable. There are charts that only rank the top 50 or 40 or 20, and so those are the thresholds, while other charts rank 100 or even 200, and so those are the thresholds. If the chart doesn't consider #41 notable, then neither should we. If the chart considers #200 notable, then so should we. In the case of Billboard, the charts' names are generally "Hot" and "Top", meaning every one (or one-hundred) of them is "Hot" and "Top".

And it is not a given that any charting is a requisite for a song article, much less being "a significant hit" on one. Abrazame (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Elvis songs

I have nominated Adam and Evil for deletion as a non-notable Elvis Presley song, but Blofeld thinks every Elvis song deserves an article, even if it means creating a one sentence stub that provides zero information and offers zero sources and the song was nothing more than an album cut. Do articles such as A House That Has Everything need to exist. I suggest redirecting until they can be expanded, if they can, but I figured I'd leave it in more knowledgable hands. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your call is right, I have redirected a few and added my 2 cents to your AfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing music videos?

An editor is claiming that his addition of a "synopsis" section to One Mic should be kept as he "derived the synopsis from viewing the video". Is this valid? Or should he have used the Template:Cite video? Dan56 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Writing what happened in a video by watching it sounds like original research to me. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's just a synopsis of what's actually visible in the video, then just cite the video itself as a source. GRAPPLE X 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Music video synopses, just like book, television or film plots, do not need to be referenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, these are primary sources and its basis is found at WP:PSTS --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, that was totally uncalled for. Obviously some scenes in some music videos can be sourced, and I would encourage that. However it is impossible to source the synopses of most videos, so references are not strictly required. Editorial discretion needs to be more careful. See the FA 4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Music video - most of the plot is unreferenced. It is just like book plots, see I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings#Plot summary. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He should have used a template. The reason is that he is referencing just about every third sentence, but each and every cite goes to a single self-composed reference. That is somewhat misleading. Yes, sometimes we source in different places in an article to the same source. But obviously the whole section is being sourced to this one video, so the only point in or effect of citing more than once is that it looks as if the section has many distinct cites when it does not.

Yet if he had used the template, the benefit would be that he would vary the cite in that he would link to the time for the beginning of each distinct vignette or scene he is describing. That would add value for the reader, and it would help an editor seeking to verify a particular assertion. And it would justify his choice of placing more than one inline cite.

His self-composed reference is superior to the template in that it provides the sort of data that is relevant to a creative commercial work, its performer(s), director, and studio/label. Cite video was not devised for music videos, or even for movies or TV shows, it was devised more generically for any visual capture, such as news footage, documentary, raw video, etc. We have Template:Cite episode for TV series; ideally editors interested in synopses of music videos would create a new template that includes genre-specific fields of artist, guest performer(s), director, label, as well as the usual time and URL and date of production and date accessed.

I propose a new template, and suggest the following:

Abrazame (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Writing what happened from watching the video is not WP:OR. Its a synopsis which wikipedia allows. Many film and TV articles have reached GA and FA with that. However it is conceivable that it would be best practise to cite the video but other than that there is no major issue here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

French charts

The Hung Medien site currently provides a chart which combines the physical and the digital markets for albums and singles (the first edition of this "new" chart was that of the 29 January 2011, which explains the high number of entries and big drops that week). However, this chart seems to be unofficial: the site of the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique continues to publish the physical chart and the digital chart separately. There is nothing about the chart displayed on Hung Medien. So, on WP, which is considered as the "official" number one single of the chart edition of 19 March 2011: On the Floor (Hung Medien) or "Celui" (SNEP)? PS: Sorry for my bad English... Europe22 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm an interesting point noted. In the past we've always used the phsyical chart alone as the main singles chart with download peaks being mentioned in prose... its interesting that Hung Medien have begun to combine the two... User talk:Kww is the man for this... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your French is better than mine, Europe22. Can you point me at any notice from Hung Medien pertaining to this? I can't find one, and it is a bit disturbing to have the standard archival site change charts without notice.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, there is no notice on Hung Medien... The change can be noted by comparing the charts on HM and on the SNEP: the chart of 22/01/2011 was the same on both sites [2][3], then changed the next week [4][5] (however, the same digital chart can be found on both sites). I know nothing else about this issue... Europe22 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: The OZAP site confirms that the charts on HM are indeed charts that combine physical and digital sales: "Jennifer Lopez est de retour au top - au sens propre du terme. La chanteuse américaine se classe cette semaine numéro un des ventes de singles combinées avec 12 496 ventes, toutes digitales, pour "On the Floor"" [6]. The site also provides the same chart positions than HM. Europe22 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Razor's Edge

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Had a question related to the Razor's Edge song page. There is also a song and album by AC/DC called Razor's Edge that was relatively popular in the US at least. Is there any thoughts about adding that info to the Razor's Edge (song) page as a second topic/subject. Coppermallow (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The album you're talking about has an article at The Razors Edge (album), feel free to add to it there. GRAPPLE X 21:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On the Floor Credits

Using ASCAP I've listed the credits for "On the Floor" by Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull. Most sources from news sites etc. have said that RedOne produced the song. Last week Billboard published a review of the song where they named the producers of the song as RedOne and Kuk Harrell. Harrell is known as vocal producer mainly but I've noticed that it is not common practise to list vocal producers alongside music producers. Am I right to omitt Harrell's name from the infobox on the basis that only one source mentions him? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I say it's fine for now. He could have produced the song, but I don't think we'll be able to know for sure until the full album credits and/or booklet is out. But since is is known as a vocal producer, I say he probably just vocally produced the song. ℥^nding·start 02:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fine to choose from any 'reliable' source where there are multiple sources that exist. So 'go ahead' and choose one that does not mention Harrell. But this is not ok if there is only one source and some of the material they present is just deliberately ignored. Saying that however, if an editor re-adds Harrell based on Billboard source, it should remain until finally resolved (as Ending-start says when "the full album credits and/or booklet is out.")—Iknow23 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the back-cover of the CD single which does say Harrell is a vocal producer.... so i'm going to stick to convention and only list the music producers. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. You have the real answer then :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

New issue... Musicnotes.com and The CD cover at Brave.de (here) both list Teddy Sky as a writer, ASCAP doesn't list Sky, but does list another person, Geraldo Sindell. What to do in this situation? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you use the Title search in ASCAP you will find that Teddy Sky is the pen name of Geraldo (Jacop) Sandell. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AH! thanks for that. Judging by the Gaga's stuff.... in the infobox he should be referred to as Geraldo Sandell but Teddy Sky in the credits/personnel section? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Offering my 2 cents...If both names are used, I hope there is a way to indicate they are 'one and the same person', to eliminate such confusion. Not only in this case, but ALL similar cases as well.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No argument with Iknow23's 2 cents. Sky/Sandell is quite an important Swedish writer/producer, but there is no article for him at the moment in the Swedish WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What I'll do per Kww's suggest is use Geraldo Sindell in the infobox, and note him in the credits/personnel as Geraldo "Teddy Sky" Sindell and then refer to him in the rest of the article as Teddy Sky. How does that sound? And as for in all cases I would advocate this approach. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine to me.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias Tonight(I'm lovin' you)

i read about 3 or 4 weeks ago that it has sold about 2.5 million in US and now probably it has reached 3 million and it shoud be confirmed on the certifications of US of the page!!! or whenever it reached please confirm it ASAP!!

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.158.95 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not been certified according to RIAA database. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts)

I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Song clips

What kind of software can I use to create song clips? Can I use Audacity?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Audacity is recommended. Select the appropriate sample size (see WP:SAMPLE if it is copyrighted) and trim. Export the file as an Ogg file (and if copyrighted, set the quality to 0 in the export "settings"). Voila! Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

First one at Sideways (Clarence Greenwood song). Eventually will try to do one for "My Kind of Town".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

At "My Kind of Town", I ran into a problem, because I wanted to show the same verse in a second clip as the first, but the second version of the song was only 2:33 and the verse was 20 seconds in that version. I sampled the whol 20 seconds even though it is more than 10% of the length of the song.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

'Radio ONLY' singles...Propose infobox Radio single if the industry would support this.

March discussion

We have had many discussions regarding 'Radio only' singles that do not have independent sales from a parent project available. I see the use of infobox single in these circumstances as trying to fit a large square into a small circle. This does not really fit as infobox single field is called 'Release' and not 'Radio date'. 'Release' means sales per the industry usage. I could support an infobox Radio single and article text using correct terminology of not calling Radio a "Release". I know we have been calling these 'Radio singles', the qualifier 'Radio' removes the sales requirement.
Does anyone really know if the industry would support this?—Iknow23 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"There Goes My Baby" was referred to as a radio-only single I believe... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 06:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't support this at all. A single is a single. There is no such thing as a "radio single", because only official singles get radio add dates. Candy o32 15:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems a lot like calling albums in Spanish "spanish albums" and holiday themed albums "Christmas albums." They do not exist. There are singles and promotional singles. There is nothing else. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is an official single vs. an unofficial one? If 'radio singles' are 'standard' singles then why have we been calling them 'radio singles'?...to differentiate them from the standard sales singles. As I said it is not up to me, but the industry. From previous discussions it seems possible that this is a change in the way the music business is done nowadays due to technological advance. If the industry says that this is what they are doing then we are to report it in that fashion.
Any more examples and sources please?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard the term 'radio single' before. It could also over-complicate things. Take a look at Alejandro (song), a "radio single" in US but a "regular single" elsewhere. I'm not a fan of the 'promo single' term and I don't really want a new one. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You just used "radio single" in describing Alejandro in the US. AGREED on the dislike of the current Wiki usage of 'promo single'. I also agree on the over-complication by adding a new infobox to some degree. That is probably why I hadn't thought of this sooner. However IMO it would alleviate the misinformation of Radio date being called a 'Release' because in an infobox Radio single the field would be accurately called 'Radio date'.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed usage...A song once sent to radio is a 'radio single' but upon being sold independently of its parent project (except the iTunes countdown or similar programs) it becomes a standard single qualifying for infobox single. If the song is sold independently...before being sent to radio, use infobox single and do not change it to infobox Radio single. In other words infobox single is sort of an upgrade from infobox Radio single.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Still....there is no such thing as a "radio single", as singles that are supposed "radio singles" are standard singles. We just can't make up or own industry term on Wikipedia and label it a "radio single." As stated many times before, labels only send songs to radio intended to be standard singles. Also I don't know what you mean by "unofficial" single, there's no such thing as that either. Candy o32 07:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I really can see where you're coming from Iknow, but the fact is, in the digital age, record labels do not release digital downloads if the album is already out, as they expect people will buy them as album tracks, making the digital release redundant. Examples (besides those already mentioned) are Take It Off (song), Trading Places (song), Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé Knowles song), Imma Be, Neighbors Know My Name. There are some, such as Rockstar 101, S&M (song) that have remix bundles available through US digital retailers, but not the original. If there is sufficient usage of the term outside Wikipedia, I may be convinced, but, as I said before, I have never heard it until now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Standard singles have true release dates (independent sales...). That is why we have been calling the hybrid a 'radio single' to disambiguate it. I am always a bit confused (and maybe bemused) whenever I see such as at Take It Off (song), "It was released as the fourth official single from the album on July 13, 2010." not agreeing that Radio date = Release (which is independent sales date) The quote is WP:WEASEL is it not? What does that really mean? Does it mean that there are also UNoffical singles from the album prior to this single? Why not just say "It is the fourth single" period? I have seen other language such as "serves as the xxth single from album". To me that means that the writer (editor) is 'reaching' or 'stretching' attempting to convince others that it is so when it is in dispute! I consider "serves as" meaning it isn't really, but the editor wants us to think so. Should just clearly state either it is a single or it isn't (or what type of single perhaps).
Thank you for mentioning Remixes as I was just about to mention those. With the advent of the often several remixes being made, whenever they are sold independently of a parent project...the song has then been 'released' as a single, even if the radio or album version has not been previously. This is because we have articles on 'songs' and not every separate version thereof. The article should be titled with only the 'song' (single) title and not include the remix version(s) that are sold in the article title. However in the article itself ALL versions of the song (single) are to be described as we see in Track listings. Radio add dates can be mentioned of the various versions that have one. And 'release dates' should be detailed and properly attributed to those versions that have that as well.
I recognize in this section header that the industry must prevail "Radio single if the industry would support this." However the industry does NOT support calling Radio dates a 'release' either, so how can we? They go through great pains to avoid it, which is why I strive to do the same. They call it "Radio add date", "going for adds" etc but NOT 'release'.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed "official"; I should have picked that up in the GA review. "Serves as x single" is a more....elegant(?)...way of saying "was the x single". I reiterate that there are many singles that are released worldwide digitally and/or physically, however in the US the labels don't bother, and just send them to radio because they expect people will purchase them as album tracks from digital retailers. I have a feeling that in the US radio adds are a bigger deal than in the rest of the world; there are several US webpages that document radio adds. I don't really have a problem with not calling radio adds a "release", but I do believe that they denote a single (in the US, at least). Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a clearly stated (less elegant) language to be used.
This proposal is intended to correct for 'Radio ONLY' singles, not those that have a physical or independent 'release' from a parent project...anywhere in the world. I have attempted to compromise my position on 'singles' by recognizing "Radio singles" due to prior discussions. But they remain different from standard singles by not having the independent sales...
However, the industry would have to support this terminology before we should create an infobox using it. I'm not saying that we should do it just because it is my idea.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The first hit from my web search was our own extremely dodgy promotional recording article; other results were blog sites and the like (and a single called "Radio). "Radio release" gave me this in the first page, which says "has announced the coming release to radio of the first single". Admittedly, it's not the most reliable of sources, but it seems to prove that radio is a form of release. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are occurrences of radio being called a release out there. Before I became involved with Wikipedia, I had no idea of the distinction between Radio dates and Release dates. Do any of the "several US webpages that document radio adds" call Radio a 'release'?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Allaccess does. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the general header does, but the section header calls them 'impacting songs' which is the same as 'impacting radio'. NOTE it does NOT say 'impacting SINGLES', so they are not claiming that Radio add makes them a single at all.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you want to do. The infobox radio single proposal is dead(?), so what would you like to change? Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This also from All Access shows that they are commingling Radio dates and Physical release with sub-sections titled "impacting songs" and "CD releases". Radio is called 'impacting' and CD is called 'release'. The example you found just happened to not have any CD's listed. The general header apparently is not designated to change if there are no CD's present. So now my 'take' on the general header really just means 'future stuff'.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(adapted from an earlier section) Since radio is not a release (per the industry refusal to call it such), it is misleading and inaccurate for the articles with Radio only dates to report a date in the 'Released' field. What should be placed there is a link (See radio date). The article section should NOT be titled 'Release dates' but 'Radio dates'. In cases of actual singles that whenever during their existence (as a promotional song or single) that has Radio date(s) that are wished to report, the Section title should reflect this additional NON-release date material; such as, 'Radio add and release dates'. While appearing in the same section as Release dates, I believe it is improper to commingle 'Radio dates' in the same table as 'Release dates'. A separate 'Radio dates' table should also be placed within the section to report the NON-release information. And the independent SALES release date is the one to be reported in the infobox 'Released' field, even if the Radio date is earlier, as Radio is not release. If the Radio date IS earliest and reported in a commingled table, how do you explain then showing the sales RELEASE date in the infobox, an item further down the table?
Also the article text should use correct terminology of not calling Radio a "Release", by using such as 'impacting radio date', 'sent to radio', etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get the point in the separation when only singles go for adds on radio. Candy o32 03:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused over your statement that 'only singles go for adds on radio.' To me it seems that you are saying that the song is already a single before it goes for adds even if it is not being sold independently... How could that be?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that at all, neither did I see where I could have implied that. I could care less which date is used first, or even if the dates are split, my only concern is that songs with only US radio add dates need to be recognized as US singles. Candy o32 00:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this US-centric singles idea. Radio singles (only released to radio, not necessarily available for download separately from the album) are very common even outside the US. Why does this well in the US it has to be this way idea keep coming up? It's not a special case. Grk1011 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) i think the main concern here is what defines a single? By wikipedia's old approach a single was released for purchase separate from an album and promoted that way. Now in the digital age individual songs can be purchased as a component track of an album effectively quashing the old theory. Equally labels are seemingly sending songs to radio without clarifying the purpose of doing so. My understanding is that labels have to pay to send songs to radio and so would only do so if they wanted it as a single. Equally iTunes often removes singles after the album's release as it unnecessarily increases the size of their database. Sometimes Amazon and 7Digital retain the separate digital releases. I thus concur that the solution might be to consider radio and digital releases as one in the same. Either way the label has to pay to get the song out there and the only reason for doing so is the wish to see it chart and generate its own revenue stream... we have a one size fits all policy here and so instead of adding an infobox type perhaps removing the distinction from single and song is best. One simple 'song' infobox might serve the purpose better. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I could support the deletion of infobox single, since we cannot agree on an industry supported definition of what constitutes a single in this age. However, I still refuse to call radio a 'release' because the industry certainly seems to go through great pains to avoid it. We should use their terminology of "impacting songs", "going for adds", "sent to radio" etc. How can we call radio a release when they do not? Their terminology doesn't mean that the song is not 'out there', it is just NOT called 'release'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, but how can we not classify it as a release when it is how some singles are identified? Candy o32 01:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot classify it as 'release' if the industry will not. Why not say it is a single from having the radio add and just avoid the word 'release'?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as the fact that it is a single isn't denied. Candy o32 02:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

But what about a song which only impacts in several countries but is released in others? As regards for the industry not using the term 'release' I'm not sure its a universal avoidance. At the end of the day we have no industry defined definition. The word release its self has no bearing or relation to either purchase or radio. Wikipedia somehow attributes release to mean purchase... whereas I'm starting to feel like a single release should mean made available independently of the album release, e.g. through a radio impact/add date, or made available to purchase as a standalone singe (with or without b-sides) either through CD or digital download. Thus a single would then be defined as any recording which receives a single release (the 'single release' referring to the definition in italics). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be no dispute that any song sold independently...anywhere is a single. It is my position that the industry 'attributes release to mean purchase...'—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok so if a song is only released in one territory but only receives a radio add, the label promotes it as a single (e.g. a press release or interview mentioning the song's release as a single) then what do you call that song? a single? or something else? what do you actually propose calling a song which is only sent to radio? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

{edit conflict}} I believe that I can agree with a single is "made available independently of the album release, e.g. through a radio impact/add date, or made available to purchase as a standalone singe (with or without b-sides) either through CD or digital download. Thus a single would then be defined as any recording which receives" the above. Thus avoiding the term 'single release'. And still using the terms "impacting radio" etc. in article texts and not calling it 'release'.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been settled that radio add dates are a type of release. Again, just a digital download won't work. I'm not talking about countdown singles, but songs that are just randomly released to digital marketplaces from an album. Simply saying that Wait Your Turn should be an official single hardly keeps your argument on this afloat, as consensus has been reached that it is not. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

But technically it is a single. was it not released digitally? did it not receive airplay? was it not given a music video? what defines "Wait your Turn" as a non-single? ... the label calling is a promo? well Mariah Carey calls "Obsessed" a "summer single" what the hell is a summer single? is it like Spanish album? lol at the end of the day labels love to label things differently if they're not successful e.g. "Go Girl" = promo single, "Wait Your Turn" = introductory single, "Obsessed" = summer single, "Whatever U Like" = club single. IMO they're all singles.... end of. none of this promo vs official single malarkey... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

{edit conflict} (continuing with prior thought) example...I would state in the article text for the radio only singles that "it became the xxth single on (date) with being sent to radio" and NOT use the term "release".—Iknow23 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get is why even if it is a "promo single" would it use the songs infobox instead of the singles infobox. Isn't a promo single a type of single? Grk1011 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why I want the single infobox to be removed. I don't think it serves a purpose as all singles are songs. Then there's different types of single... Promotional, lead, official, club, buzz etc. they're all terms used by the industry. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Unique) It received no airplay and music videos mean nothing. Once again, a digital release counts for little. Upgrade U and Christmas Tree are more. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are we to decide that a 12" vinyl release does not count as a single release. The source in Upgrade U does not state its a promotional single. Limited release yes, promotional not necessarily. After all what's it in promotion of? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the second article, that's contradictory as halfway down the article it says "digital-download only single" yet in the upper half it says promotional single. In my eyes promotional singles are things like iTunes countdown singles, or singles released for an adcampaign... i.e. to promote something else other than the album... people are confusing the term promotional to mean limited release. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it appears as if it was issued as a promo single but they decided to sell it. Anyway, why not? Again, you think about whether it was to promote the album, or both the album and the song. A limited release in Vinyl format seems more like it's just for the album's sake. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

{edit conflict}} Yes all singles are songs. And all songs can be purchased separately from the parent project nowadays, whether you call it a single or album track. Agreed with Lil_℧niquℇ №1 characterization of "promo vs official single malarkey". Please see earlier in this section my comment on OFFICIAL singles at 22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC) and Adabow's response at 23:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Also Candyo32 at 07:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)"...I don't know what you mean by "unofficial" single, there's no such thing as that either."—Iknow23 (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A good example of this is Go Girl (Ciara song) and Never Ever (Ciara song). "GG" was released as the first single from Fantasy Ride but later due to a lack of commercial performance, it was labelled a promotional video despite being release to radio, iTunes and having a music video. "NE" was the labelled the album's first official single. Does that make "GG" unofficial? does it discredit it's release as the first single? It was researching that which made me thing it this whole thing should be removed... a song is a single once released independently... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree.. I've fallen in the trap of using "serves as" before not realising that this adds an element of doubt and/or room for movement. Maybe we need a new standard... "ABC" is a song by American recording artist DEF. It was released on Month Day, Year as the second single from DEF's third album, GHI." maybe having this as a standard opening for articles could also help remove confusion. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me with one exception. Please don't use the word 'released' if 'Radio only'...—Iknow23 (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

More and more I an beginning to sway towards the supporting of the phasing out of the "promotional singles." I think Unique said before, since iTunes countdown singles are really the onlyitems said to be "promotional" but use the song infobox anyway, then they should just be said to "be made for release prior to the album, exclusively on iTunes on ...." or something like that. However on the infobox demoting, I still think it needs to be a distinction between a single and a song. Candy o32 04:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What about:

Radio:
- "ABC" is a song by American recording artist DEF. It impacted on Month Day, Year as the second single from DEF's third album, GHI."
Purchase- download/CD:
- "ABC" is a song by American recording artist DEF. It was released on Month Day, Year as the second single from DEF's third album, GHI." — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lil_℧niquℇ №1 - You are right on target :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(light bulb moment) ... a song is a single upon impacting (being sent to radio) and/or being released (released to purchase via CD or digital download) independent of its parent album. — is the the eureka simplicity definition we required? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I say yes, but add something about the 'release date' being preferred (if it has one) as I believe most want that used then instead of the 'radio date'.
Candyo32 - Because the iTunes countdown is a 'limited time availability' offer, I don't call them any kind of single. I just like to say that they were 'made available for pre-sale from the parent project' and do NOT use the word 'release' at all because these are definitely not a standard release by any means.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lil_℧niquℇ №1 I'd like to add that A single may start out using the "Radio" text (impacted) but upon its later 'release' (if it so happens) should be revised to the "Purchase- download/CD" text of 'released on'.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

April discussion

New thought...due to singles chronology order may need to state BOTH dates if Radio is first.
'Impacted' on April 10, 2011 as the third single from DEF's third album, GHI and was released on May 1, 2011.
In such case I would want to see both listed in the infobox, the radio date being notable as this is the date we are using to call it a single [with (Radio) indicated after the date] and a br to a next line to report the 'release' date. Since the field is actually titled 'Release' we need to report that date there.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to disagree. Although you are right that singles are not released to radio, I don't think it matters in the infobox. It honestly looks messy, and I swear to god if any just popping by editor came across that, they would delete it, as I did. Whether or not it was sent to radio or released digitally or as a CD single, it still had some type of release. ℥^nding·start 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You agree that 'singles are not released to radio', so how can you put a Radio date in an infobox field titled "Release:" without some type of explanation? I don't agree with your characterization that (Radio) is 'messy' (but for those that do agree with you) it is completely necessary to properly and (as accurately as currently possible) report the data. You see, without (Radio) there, you are in effect calling Radio a 'release' but the industry (and you agree) does not.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, why? If we have already determined that radio is a form of release, why do we need two separate dates? That's pointless. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We agree that Radio date can 'make a song a single' but it is still not called a 'release' in terminology. Thus there is the possibility of both dates for a single. A "Radio add", "impacting radio", "going for adds", etc = A Radio date. A sales date independent of the parent project (Album, EP, etc) = A Release date.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay lets look at this, Take It Off (song), is a single but was only released to American and Australian radio, was never made available for sale other than a digital download off of the album. Just something to think about. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. This situation is a very frequent occurrence these days. However, the infobox is reporting a total falsehood. It is stating that July 13, 2010 is a "Release" meaning a sales date independent of Animal. I know it is not entirely correct to put (Radio) after the date, but it will as least be disambiguated from a Sales date, because it is not.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Who decides that a radio add is not an official release? America/Canada doesnt have CD singles and only the first single off of an album gets an itunes release (generally) so the NA version of a Release is just radio. The "Release" field does not state anywhere that it must be a sales release, it's a release of when the song had been released as a single, US artists use Radio as the official release. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the infobox needs modifying to add radio date field? (i thought i'd throw it out there) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We may think of it as being a 'release' but we are reporting on their industry which refuses to call Radio a release, so we cannot do so. We need to use their terminology of "Radio add date", "Going for adds", "impacting radio", etc.

Yes, indeed Lil-unique1...I was about to suggest that. In order to properly complete our consensus that Radio date = single 'creation' but not single 'release', we need a field parameter added to infobox single 'Radio date'. THIS ENTIRE SECTION (not just this subsection) is about trying to come up with a resolution of properly reporting Radio dates in the infobox. Thus I Support your suggestion. I would like to see this field with an accompanying instructional comment programmed to display, "TO BE USED ONLY WHEN THE Radio date is prior to a Release date (if any)." The radio date is thus to be displayed only when it is most notable as being the basis for calling a song a 'single'. If the Radio date is AFTER a Release date then it does not need to appear in the infobox, but can still be discussed in the article text if desired.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Conditional support - Ill support this but we need a written guildline for how to use both. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

something along the lines of

“

When a song's radio impact date comes before the song's digital download and/or CD single release date, place radio dates in the 'radio add date' field, and purchase dates in the 'release date' field. If a song only receives a radio add date, use only the 'radio add date' field. If a song is released before its radio add date then the 'release date' field should be used and the 'radio add date' field should be left blank.

”

Feel free to modify the suggestion as required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(→) Iknow... already listed a proposal while i was typing LOL. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox usage, PROPOSAL:

When there is a Radio date only. Use the 'Radio date' field.

When there is a Release date only. Use the "Released:" field.

When there are BOTH Radio date and Release date...

Radio date occurs FIRST, report BOTH dates.
Release date occurs FIRST, ONLY report Release date here (but can mention Radio date in article text.)
—Iknow23 (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright those answer the single's field, what about the album's field? Which date is to be used first? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the 'Radio date' field should be inserted prior to (above) the Released: field, so when BOTH are displayed, the earlier Radio date will appear first.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we proposing this addition to the album infobox singles fields too? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bahah sorry, just making sure everything is consistent and everything is covered before we start to imply new rules. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):(CK)Lakeshade - You would have to bring that up now, LOL. I was hoping to resolve this portion first before tackling that...but since you brought it up...need to add a 'Radio date' field for the singles chrono listings on album pages as well. I would just use the Radio date when FIRST as this is what created it as a single and determines its placement within the chrono.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sucks I missed this discussion, but I think that's an excellent idea to add a radio date field. How exactly would that work though? I'm still a bit confused. ℥^nding·start 00:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

By revising the Infobox single template to add a field parameter, look at "Radio" and "Released" below:

{{Infobox single <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs -->
| Name           = 
| Cover          = <!-- just the file name -->
| Border         = 
| Alt            = 
| Caption        = 
| Artist         = 
| Album          = 
| A-side         = 
| B-side         = 
| Radio          = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ONLY USE when there is ONLY an OFFICIAL Radio date [(no release (Sales) date at all], or the OFFICIAL Radio date is prior to the Release date. -->
| Released       = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --><!-- ALWAYS USE when there is a 'Release' (sales) date, even if later than an OFFICIAL Radio date. -->
| Format         = 
| Recorded       = 
| Genre          = 
| Length         = <!-- {{Duration|m=MM|s=SS}} -->
| Label          = 
| Writer         = 
| Producer       = 
| Certification  = 
| Chronology     = 
| Last single    = 
| This single    = 
| Next single    = 
| Misc           = 
}}

—Iknow23 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually really like this idea. It sounds good to me! It will deff take some getting used to (if it happens), but it will a nice addition. Bravo! ℥^nding·start 01:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's really the ONLY proper way to do it. Even with (Radio) after the date in the "Released" field [(which is the best we can do currently to disambiguate it from a 'real' Release (sales) date], it is in effect calling it 'Released' because the field says that. This will give the Radio date a PROPERLY titled field.
Same in the singles chronos on Album pages.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that in the UK ... song's don't recieve an impact date. But they do get playlisted instead at www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist. WebCite has to be used to archive these sources. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is fine? Please forgive this US person's ignorance of UK Radio1. Is it a NATIONAL playlist? It is not an individual station playlist, I presume?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies Iknow... yes BBC Radio 1 is the biggest national radio station that is actually broadcast worldwide. There is another handful of national stations including 4 more from the BBC (BBC Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, Radio 5, Radio 5 Live), Capital FM, and Real Radio. The others are all regionalized or too small to be notable. Play list information from Radio 1 is considered reliable IMO as it is the largest station in the country by a clear mile. The fact that its broadcast worldwide through BBC Worldwide is also a big factor. Sorry if that sounded like an advertisement. LOL — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it used for sources but didn't really know what it is. I will certainly have no problem with accepting it as a source. In my template example above we can just consider it an 'OFFICIAL Radio date' as I have not noted there that the terms 'going for adds', 'sent to radio' or 'impacting radio' are required. Those terms are frequently seen but I do NOT mean by my seemingly constant mention of them [LOL], that ONLY they are acceptable. Any OFFICIAL Radio date (excluding just a 'premiere' or an individual Radio station (by call letter) playlist) is intended to be acceptable. I did not consider your reply to be an advert at all, because I had asked for info :D ... thanks again.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Iknow23 is right in making the encyclopedic distinction between actual single releases and radio songs. I think the way he suggests handling it in the revised infobox template above is a simple, subtle way of doing so. It adds value and is explained in a way that competent editors should have no problem with. The only alteration I would suggest is to highlight the difference by framing the box in a different color, much in the way we have seen fit to frame studio albums in blue, live albums in brown, greatest hits albums in green, and soundtrack albums in grey, despite the fact that they all share the same commercial availability. We already use distinct colors to discern between a song that stands on its own in the marketplace as a distinct commercial product unto itself and one that does not, in that we use yellow for commercial singles and pale blue for album tracks. I propose we either use the album track pale blue for radio-only songs (as album tracks have long been promoed to rock radio, for example) or devise a distinct color (a combination of the two, pale green?) for promo-only songs (regardless of what media they are transferred to radio on). Abrazame (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)