Jump to content

Talk:Cold (Maroon 5 song)

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cold (Maroon 5 song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

[edit]

Is there a reason we need the track listing section (Cold_(Maroon_5_song)#Track_listing)? This is a song, not an album, so I don't believe calling them tracks is appropriate. It looks to me like they are remixes, and all of those would also need WP:RS. I don't see any need for them to be listed in this particular way using a template that I believe is designed for albums, not remixes.

Accordingly, I am going to change the title of the section to remixes. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim:, thanks for cleaning up. I've readded the section in the standard format that is used across articles with references that better represent what was trying to be done in the first place. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: I removed the amazon refs. That's advertising and not WP:RS. I've deleted these references with the support of other editors numerous times without objection before. I'm confused why you think they are legit. Can you show me a place where they are legit?
When you say "track listing" is used "across articles", can you show me what you mean? If it is Maroon 5, that wouldn't make the case for me. The Maroon 5 articles are constantly polluted with advertising, which I and others have removed only to be put back in by short-lived IP editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies but I'm not sure why including a retailer e.g. amazon, iTunes etc is considered advertising? I don't see an established consensus for that. If we're going down that route, then we could say including 'x' newspaper is also advertising for that newspaper. I think that is a nonsensical argument. If the section included the words "Amazon digital download" I would be open to considering that but I'd still argue that it isn't a valid argument. Can you point me to any discussion that says that using a retailer such as amazon or itunes is considered unreliable and advertising? WP:AFFILIATE specifically allows inline citations of things like Amazon. Furthermore, almost all articles for singles contain a "track listing" section which outlines the different versions of the various release formats. Again, I don't understand why this is an issue. The number of articles containing both of these elements are far greater than the number without. I would argue that unless there is a discussed established consensus then your edits are controversial and require discussion (though I can see good faith in what you are trying to do). → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for showing me WP:AFFILIATE which I have not paid close attention to before.
Please note thatWP:AFFILIATE says:
"inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such...an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as...running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available."
First, its says journalistic and academic sources are preferable. Second, the bigger problem is that there is no reason to cover these remixes unless they are mentioned in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS. They are not tracks of an album. Hence, there is actually no WP:RS for that section to justify the existence of the content mentioning all these remixes. The run times really don't matter if the remixes are of no significance.
If we're going down that route, then we could say including 'x' newspaper is also advertising for that newspaper.
No. Not the same. What would be the same is if the article on the book Moby Dick was sourced to Amazon.com's sale of the book rather than an independent-third party's comments about the importance of the book as a literary classic. How many of the 169 citations for Moby Dick go to one of the numerous pages by Amazon.com that sell Moby Dick books? Zero! Or as another example, if Person X wrote book Y, and the book was not notable, but an editor tried to pretend it was notable by using the page at Amazon.com as a citation for the book, that would definitely be promotional, and be the same kind of violation of our rules as what I am seeing here by including links to an official video for the song rather than an independent source saying the video is significant in some way. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally @David Tornheim: I've noticed you have outright blanked any mention of Vevo or Youtube. The inclusion of Vevo or Youtube links in this article were a link to music video itself or to a behind the scenes video, not to promote youtube or vevo as platforms. I do think you have a wider issue with promotion across wikipedia. While I do think there is merrit in a wider discussion about promotion I don't think outright removing content because of personally held views is necessarily inline with the community driven approach across wikipedia. I apologise in advance if you know about something I don't re: GDPR or other data regulations but I'm not aware of any legal precedent or community consensus for your approach. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did not mean we are promoting Apple, YouTube, iTunes, etc., but promoting their products, by giving them free coverage and free clicks. Our references and citations are supposed to be for reliable sources and content--not to provide free advertising for these products. This is standard Wikipolicy. WP:NOTADVERTISING says:
Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources
Using links to the official video on YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, Vevo, etc. is neither independent nor third-party. It's free advertising and promotion. The concerns about promotion and free advertising is not just my opinion, it's both a consensus opinion observed widely across Wikipedia and policy as stated above.
That said, if I deleted a "behind the scenes video", that is more of a documentary that is WP:INDEPENDENT, then it is possible that would be acceptable WP:RS. Are you contending that one of the links I deleted to a Vevo or other video was WP:INDEPENDENT and third-party and would actually qualify as WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are interpreting things far too literally. and by your understanding we shouldn't include links to the Guardian or any other news outlet as these also make money by advertising. Amazon and iTunes do not make money from simply visiting the website. Whilst the general principals of what you are saying are correct their application to the inclusion of a track list/format section is incorrect per WP:AFFILIATE. I would ask that if you disagree with the WP:Affiliate policy and still think that this constitutes advertising then you will need to seek a new consensus. There is already an established policy and practise that contradicts your approach so under that context, your edits are controversial and require a consensus to be sought because it is not how we are correctly directed by WP:Affiliate. I think where independent sources can be used they are always preferred but I don't think overall that the inclusion Amazon, iTunes, Vevo, YouTube etc. should be removed if there isn't a third party reference. Could I please kindly ask that you restore the references and content to this article and refrain from deletion in any other article until there is an established consensus contrary to WP:Affiliate or supporting what you are saying. I am extremely familiar with editing practises since 2008 and I have not seen this ever come up as an issue on featured articles either tbh.
A link to the actual video footage constitutes as a reliable source for non-controversial information. Including the YouTube or Vevo link rather than just referencing like a book allows editors to check the information. Wikipedia has enough notices about being not-for-profit, non-commercially affiliated for people to understand that it isn't promotion of iTunes, Apple, Amazon etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 16:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested more eyes on this from the appropriate project. Done here:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Amazon.com_as_RS_for_music_video_remixes --David Tornheim (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a "track listing" for a single file digital download: it is very common for a song to be able to be downloaded. Mentioning that the remixes exist and sourcing them is another thing but these aren't track listings. Additionally, note that I changed the formatting per WP:DASH and MOS:PSEUDOHEAD just now. Please also do not use stores as sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Thanks for your comment. That's what I thought. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: please also see this discussion with Binksternet about the incessant problem of these links being added:
Talk:Maroon_5#Mention_of_this_article_regarding_references_to_Youtube_videos
That may be why you keep seeing the links used this way all over the project--because of lack of sufficient vigilance to remove the WP:PROMO. I think we are outnumbered by the IPs who want that stuff in and don't care about the project, but only getting their promo in, and never discuss. Even addressing just this one song is a lot of work, because the IPs restore it almost immediately. As a long-term editor, you're not like those IPs. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me ask everyone to refer to WP:AFFILIATE. The use of retail links to source releases e.g. the existence of remixes, titles and track lengths has always been allowed. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 11:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that number of policies have been developed in isolation and without reference to other each other. Given that there is a genuine reason for wanting to use retail sources in this way would people say it is acceptable to use retail sources for release dates, formats etc. Where there isn't a reliable third party source? Then we can advise that editors try to source alternative sources rather than outright remove/blank content? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 11:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: I would suggest you bring this to a bigger forum and ask the question; perhaps at WP:RS/N and/or WT:ALBUM. Also, I suggest you do a search through the archives of both first. That's how I came to the conclusion about sourcing, and after asking a number of established editors about it.
I'm not a big fan of blanking sections if I believe appropriate WP:RS exists. But the fact that these things keep getting sourced back to link candy tells me that the IP editors who so badly want that content are probably working for record companies, or similar, and are not interested in helping build an encyclopedia but filling it with links so they can sell products. If they want the content to stick, why don't they put in proper WP:RS? I can tell you it is a lot of work to keep taking all those inappropriate refs out--which they almost IMMEDIATELY put back without edit-summaries, without discussion, without engaging using our rules--as we are outnumbered by the IPs. That's probably why you see it all over. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thanks for the suggestions. I've checked the RSN discussions and there are a number about whether Amazon is an RS for reviews, sales etc and the answer is no, but when it comes to release dates, existence or track listings, the consensus is that it is is fine as seen at WP:RSPSOURCES. This coupled with WP:Affiliate lead me to believe that it is sufficiently documented within our policies that the way Amazon was used in this article was perfectly acceptably. As for YouTube I think a link to a documentary, behind the scenes footage etc is fine to use as well for the same reasons. @Sergecross73: and @Koavf: what do you guys think? I'm happy to try to source alternative 3rd party sources where possible but I do think current guidelines linked do allow for the use of Retail sources for these purposes. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 12:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lil-unique1, I think the best case scenario is that they should be avoided but probably outrite banned. We also don't need a source for a track listing: the source is the album/single. That's like providing a source for how many pages a book has: the source is the pages of the book. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is my mindset as well. Sergecross73 msg me 04:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_(Maroon_5_song)&oldid=1206740250"