Talk:Saving Light

Youtube in external links

Further information can be found over at WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. My issue is that WP:VIDEOLINK states that music videos are fine for referencing as primary sources, while it doesn't really have the same use in the EL section. The text in #1 at WP:ELNO also states that "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." All important info about the music vid is already covered in its own section for the page, thus adding a Youtube link to the EL section is unncessary, redundant, and should be avoided. A link in the infobox for the sake of including it into the article should suffice. aNode (discuss) 06:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My main problem with your edits was that there are plentiful amounts of featured articles and good articles that have their respective music videos in the external links, some of them, such as Smells Like Teen Spirit and S&M (song) being classified as some of the best articles about songs on Wikipedia. To think that they would have such an obvious "mistake" seems almost impossible to me. I was told in Saving Light's good article review by @Aoba47: "There should be a section like this with a link to the music video. Please refer to other GAs or FAs to see what I mean.", so why would he, a user with over 75 good articles and 20 featued articles under his belt, tell me that I should do something that would be considered a "problem"? Micro (Talk) 08:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, comparison with other articles can't be applied here, like I've said in the edit summary. (WP:OTHERTHINGS) Perhaps the FA vetting process ignored the link back then, or it was added at a later date after receiving FA (I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter). But yes, the link is still in the page, at the bottom of the infobox which states that it's the official music vid and that it can be easily accessible (even more than having it at the bottom of the page!). I do recommend this placement, but if you really want, do put it back at the external links. There isn't really a right or wrong here, but I do think the link should be best placed in the infobox. aNode (discuss) 09:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally i'm fine with the placement of the music video, with my only problem with the Saving Light edit is that you got rid of the link to the acoustic version. I'm more concerned about because this article is being nominated for featured article status, it should be like the other featured articles. Now because of your reasoning why it shouldn't be in the external links, it would seem like a big deal, since (as I've said before) most FA and GA song articles would have the music video in the external links. I think that if you believe that the music videos shouldn't be in the external links and instead be in their respective infoboxes or somewhere else, you should suggest this in the WikiProject Songs talk page as you seem to talk about how the FA vetting process is old and needs updating. Micro (Talk) 09:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll make the suggestion one day, but for now, if the acoustic version link were to return to the EL section, would it be better? aNode (discuss) 10:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As it isn't the main song the article is for, the acoustic version would seem fine to stay in the external links. I was considering adding a link to Notaker's remix of the song, but it was neither uploaded by Monstercat or had a music video, it shouldn't appear in the article. In my opinion, I would say that if a song has a music video, it would make sense to put it into the infobox. If the song has an alt music video, or a different version of the song has a music video, it should go into the external links. If the song doesn't have a music video and/or wasn't officially uploaded by the band, record label, or distributor, it shouldn't appear in the article at all. I only reverted your first edit because i'm a little too protective of this article and was/still am concerned that any edit may not be beneficial to it and because the the above mentioned Aoba47 told me to link the music video in the external links. Micro (Talk) 10:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I can add coverage of the acoustic version in the page's MV section, so we could move it there too! I guess your logic is right, only official links should be included. But the links don't have to enter the external link section; it can be used as a ref instead to be included in the text (example, the music video for notaker's remix for the song was released on 19 August 1923 [insert ref with mv link here]).
But all cool though, no beef intended. It's perfectly fine to wanna keep an article as good as it could be, especially if you wrote it fully! (I rmb how protective I was of my first article, it was blanked but I brought it back hehe) But if it was Aoba47 who advised you to put the links in, I'll keep his opinion above mine. aNode (discuss) 10:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think the acoustic version would fit in the 'music video' section, it makes more sense for it to be in the 'remixes' section. The link could also be removed the external links and instead be used as a reference on the already existing sentence "A video showing the choir performing the song was released by Monstercat via their YouTube channel." I'd recommend you check out the featured article nomination for Saving Light, if you have any criticisms/concerns about the article, I would gladly address them and if you are satisfied with the article, you could support its promotion. Micro (Talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It is fine to have the link for the music video in the infobox; I only pointed this out in the GAN review as I was more accustomed to seeing it placed in the "External links" section. It should be fine as long as it is placed in only one of these places to avoid overlinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

FA recommendations

Hmmm, taking a look at the page again and comparing it with other FA articles (see Habits (Stay High)), the latter all seem to have a 10-20 second song sample of their respective tracks in their "Composition" section. Like what genre the track is and the exact specification of the song's compo, BPM and musical notes and stuff. Do you think it would be possible to add that section in? (Not sure if there are enough refs to warrant a separate composition section) aNode (discuss) 13:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would love to add a sample from the song, the article previously had one actually, though it was removed during the articles good article nomination, with Aoba47 saying "Remove the audio sample, unless you can find further critical commentary to prove how it is helpful to the reader. I do not see how the audio sample really illustrates anything. The reader does not need to hear the song in order to understand the lyrics." As pointed out, a song sample shouldn't be added unless there is sufficient commentary about the songs composition alongside the sample. I haven't found anything that would 100% be cool to use as the sample commentary. As for an actual composition section, that would also be neat to have, however unlike Habits, Saving Light isn't a well known song amongst the mainstream, so I couldn't find anything useful about the composition that is actually usable. I am also unfamiliar with constructing a composition section, so I do not know if there are specific references that I must use and how. The main problem with adding more onto this article, is Saving Light's popularity, by which i mean that it hasn't broken into the mainstream and didn't even enter any charts that I know of. Micro (Talk) 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• An audio sample is not a requirement for an article on a song. It is an example of non-free media, and should only be used to illustrate something to the reader that goes beyond the prose. From my experience, audio samples are only used to illustrate elements of the song's composition to the reader, but all of the information on the song for this article is about the lyrics. Just because other articles have something does not make appropriate for this one. As you have stated above (comparison with other articles can't be applied here). Information about the tempo and key are frequently sourced through sheet music; unless this song has sheet music with it, adding information about it without references would count as original research. I have rarely seen music critics talk about these kind of details in a review. More information on the song's composition would be ideal, but if critics do not talk about it during their reviews, then the information may simply not be available. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess you're right. There's not much point in adding if it doesn't contribute anything significant or notable. And doing a search there's no official sheet info, so a composition section is def off limits. Regardless, I think this article is as good as it can ever be considering its notablity. I will give it my support for a FA promotion. All the best! aNode (discuss) 14:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, on paper I would only note that it doesn't have any chart positions, which is unfortunate but does not oppose notability in music nor qualification for an FA candidate. I would comment its size as an article but very short featured articles tells me that that's irrelevant. So I will support the FA, and proceed to point out some minor nitpicks and thoughts. Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• The lead states that the artists are Gareth Emery and Ian Standerwick, but the infobox lists them as Gareth Emery and Standerwick (and so does the cover art). Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This is because Gareth Emery just uses his name, but Ian Standerwick uses his last name, so this is pretty much a case of using an "alias" (sorta) vs using the first and last real name. If you think it's better to use just Standerwick in the lead, I will change it. Micro (Talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if Ian Sanderwick is known mononymously and "Sanderwick" is his stage name and common name, then that is what he should be referred to as. Especially in the opening sentence. Featured article 4 (Beyoncé album) does not refer to the artist as "Beyoncé Knowles" in the lead. Lazz_R 20:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Micro (Talk) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Make Trance #1 Again" is listed with quotation marks in the section (I'm not sure if there's an MoS rule for awards) but is listed without them in the section heading. Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Changed heading so it has quotation marks. Micro (Talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know about listing that the song was number one on Beatport, as that is a WP:BADCHART. However I suppose it is referenced with a reliable secondary source, and is relevant to the section. Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If beatport was in a "charts" section, I would remove it because of BADCHART, but because it is important to Make Trance #1 Again and that it isn't a part of a separate charts section, I think it would stay. Micro (Talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• A State of Trance 2017 should be italicised in the heading. Also there is no article for it, so the redirect links should likely be removed. Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Italicised and redirect removed. Micro (Talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Good, good. Though I think you may have removed the link to A State of Trance, which is an article, rather than the (multiple) links to A State of Trance 2017 which is a redirect. I will sort this out for you Lazz_R 20:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, made a small mistake there, thanks for pointing it out. Micro (Talk) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• A frame from the music video could easily be uploaded for this article, though not strictly needed, it would help to illustrate that section. Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Fun fact: The article previously had a frame from the music video prior to the articles good article review, but was removed during the review. It would be nice to put in a frame of the music video in again, but I don't think it is generally needed right now. If it was going to be added again, I would need to get a good enough reference to have commentary about the music video. Micro (Talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Understandable Lazz_R 20:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• The personnel section is formatted differently from what I am used to seeing (<person name> – writing, <role>, <instrument>) though I'm sure this format is fine. Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I based the personal section off of Habits (Stay High), which is a featured article. The problem with electronic music is that one or two people would do mixing, mastering, general production, musical arrangement, 18 instruments, etc, so I would think that doing (<role>, writing, <instrument> – <person name>) would be more reasonable. Micro (Talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This is true, well justified. The updated formatting fixes look good Lazz_R 20:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hope this helps, Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the music video still suggestion, there was a pretty emotional part in the vid in about 70% in where the girl was in tears after being bullied so hard. It would make for a powerful shot in the article. aNode (discuss) 15:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)