Talk:Promotional recording/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Promotional recording. 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 |
untitled
I dont agree that it RECENTLY bad became "radio single" 71.10.88.69 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Selling promotional recordings
Perhaps some mention of this recent court case is in order? - dcljr (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
iTunes promotional singles are sold
Look here. This ends it. Promotional singles can also be sold on iTunes. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight. You are using a blog to source this? As far as I know, blogs are not reliable sources. Greekboy (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It has "blog" in its name but it is not considered a blog, but is used widely on Wikipedia. It is not just written by random users, it has a group of specific editors. Have you not heard of "The Prophet Blog?" --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Simply hilarious. Care to prove that? Greekboy (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Care to prove it is? Calling it a blog because blog is in its name is WP:OR. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No calling it a blog because it has all the markings of a blog is not WP:OR. In fact, the disclaimer on the site specifically says: Also, I sometimes post information that is rumour filled and for fun. Unless there is a concrete source for the information, please regard it as a rumour and not fact. Besides the fact that this disclaimer entirely discredits this source as reliable, it also demonstrates that it is only one user posting this. This site does not appear to have an editorial board, nor do I see any proof that it is published by a "group of specific editors" as you claim, which none are disclosed. Remember the burden of proof lies with you, as you are the one who wishes to add the information to the article. Greekboy (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Either way, About.com is perfectly reliable and is my second source. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No it is not. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources talk archives, about.com is not a reliable source. See here: [1] Bring it up with them. Greekboy (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Specifically? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Specifically: "...some of the links they provide may be reliable (it depends on the link) so it could be considered a useful tertiary source, but not a reliable source in itself." Greekboy (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I meant I want to see the page you got it from. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is linked above in my initial response. Specifically says see here. I'm not sure how much clearly that could get. It has been brought up multiple times in the archives if you search. Greekboy (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I meant I want to see the page you got it from. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Specifically: "...some of the links they provide may be reliable (it depends on the link) so it could be considered a useful tertiary source, but not a reliable source in itself." Greekboy (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Specifically? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No it is not. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources talk archives, about.com is not a reliable source. See here: [1] Bring it up with them. Greekboy (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Either way, About.com is perfectly reliable and is my second source. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No calling it a blog because it has all the markings of a blog is not WP:OR. In fact, the disclaimer on the site specifically says: Also, I sometimes post information that is rumour filled and for fun. Unless there is a concrete source for the information, please regard it as a rumour and not fact. Besides the fact that this disclaimer entirely discredits this source as reliable, it also demonstrates that it is only one user posting this. This site does not appear to have an editorial board, nor do I see any proof that it is published by a "group of specific editors" as you claim, which none are disclosed. Remember the burden of proof lies with you, as you are the one who wishes to add the information to the article. Greekboy (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Care to prove it is? Calling it a blog because blog is in its name is WP:OR. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Simply hilarious. Care to prove that? Greekboy (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It has "blog" in its name but it is not considered a blog, but is used widely on Wikipedia. It is not just written by random users, it has a group of specific editors. Have you not heard of "The Prophet Blog?" --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I never saw that. However, if those 2 fail, this here will work. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again I am not seeing a cut and dry editorial board. The article is by "AOL Music Staff", would be best to ask on the noticeboard though. Plus it doesn't seem to mention that they were specifically released on iTunes. They may very well have been released on those days, but it does not go into detail explaining the nature of the release. Greekboy (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"Do It Like This" was sold on iTunes, as stated on its parent album page, and yet it is a single. And About.com is not unreliable, as the discussion said some of the pages relating to About were rather disputable than unreliable and many were fine. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was sold on iTunes. And? What does that prove? You need a source to specifically say promotional singles are sold on iTunes. Regarding About.com, it has been brought up numerous times, even on the administrators noticeboard. The discussion I linked sums its up though "it could be considered a useful tertiary source, but not a reliable source in itself." You can't use about.com to primary source something like this. And as you were told on your talk by another user, some of their sub pages have even been blacklisted in the past. Greekboy (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- If Do It Like This was sold only on iTunes and yet it is a promotional single, that proves the promos can be sold on iTunes. Subpages. About.com is often used in song articles as sources and is known for their critical reviews from their music website, which is what I sourced. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That proves nothing as it is 100 percent pure synthesis, exactly as outlined. You are taking two sources and combining them to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. And you can't cherry pick from sources. If part of them are unreliable, then who is to say the other part is not? Sources need to be 100 percent reliable. Hence the name: Reliable sources. About.com has already been discussed numerous times, and a quick search will show you that. Bring it up with WP:RS. Greekboy (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Editors have already decided that top40.about is reliable, as you will see it in quite a few GA articles. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I would like to see that discussion. Just because it passed onto GA's doesn't mean its right. It could have very well have been an oversight. If you REALLY want to bring About.com into this, take a look at this article. It completely crushes your argument on promotional singles being paid downloads, as it explicitly outlines what promotional music is. Even the author of this specific posting is a music industry veteran. But as I stated, About.com is not a reliable source in itself, to be able to source such claims. The best thing to do would be to take it up with WP:RS once again, if we really want about.com to be used. Greekboy (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually looking into it more, I stumbled across Talk:About.com which goes into detail about its reliability. I also stumbled upon this discussion and this discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums talk page, disusing About.com reviews being used. There seems to be a disagreement about it. Correct me if I am wrong, but top40.about.com is being used for reviews on the GA pages right? Other aspects of the site being used as a review are sketchy at best though. Greekboy (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- How does that crush anything I've said? It never even mentions the word single. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- And both those discussions never directly call everything on About.com unreliable. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Single=Music. Technically promo singles are sent out in promo packages, or EPKs that usually include info about the artist and about the song. The "single" part is just an element of the release. Once again, regarding About.com, there has been disputes about it and that is more than obvious. Bring it up with WP:RS if you wish to include it. You want to add the source to the article, so the burden lies with you. Besides, you can't even use that source or any other to source a paid download as a promotional single unless it explicitly states that is what a promotional single is. None of these sources state that. Greekboy (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is not needed. top40.about has already been used for much information in GA articles. And, um yeah. It says Do It Liked This is a promo single on iTunes, which means it's for sale. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) But where does it say that a promotional single is something that is sold? Just because about.com calls it a promo single doesn't make it so. You used the SAME EXACT argument with TFM and countless singles. You (and other users) stated that just because some sites call something a CD, EP, or single, doesn't make it so. Same exact situation. Until you can provide a source that specifically says promotional singles=paid downloads, this info does not belong in the article. Greekboy (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- And until you can provide a source that all promo singles are free, it stays in the article. It does say that. It is a promo single that is for sale. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the burden lies with you to add such information. Yes, the article has tons of issues, but adding more false information to it using synthesis to reach a conclusion will not help its cause. Greekboy (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not synthesis. There is nothing wrong with it. It says that a promotional singles was sold on iTunes, thus saying that iTunes has began to sell promotional singles. It sources what is in the sentence. Nothing more, nothing less. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. What you are trying to add is pure synthesis. Quoting straight from it: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That is exactly what you are doing. None of the articles explicitly state this. That being said, I added tags to the article as it does have issues that need to be dealt with. Greekboy (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is just three sources stating that iTunes sold a promotional single. Synthesis would be if one source called it a promo and another said it was sold on iTunes. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is very well a form of synthesis. Again "....imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Which is what you are doing. What you source needs to be stated in the source. With your logic, I should go change TFM back to a studio album because many sources state such, right? Same logic you are using. Just because it was called a studio album does not mean those same sources can be used to override the defined definition of what a studio album is. That is essentially what you are doing now with promotional single. The author of the article called it a promotional single, so you try to use it to redefine what a promotional single is. Greekboy (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is just three sources stating that iTunes sold a promotional single. Synthesis would be if one source called it a promo and another said it was sold on iTunes. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. What you are trying to add is pure synthesis. Quoting straight from it: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That is exactly what you are doing. None of the articles explicitly state this. That being said, I added tags to the article as it does have issues that need to be dealt with. Greekboy (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not synthesis. There is nothing wrong with it. It says that a promotional singles was sold on iTunes, thus saying that iTunes has began to sell promotional singles. It sources what is in the sentence. Nothing more, nothing less. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the burden lies with you to add such information. Yes, the article has tons of issues, but adding more false information to it using synthesis to reach a conclusion will not help its cause. Greekboy (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- And until you can provide a source that all promo singles are free, it stays in the article. It does say that. It is a promo single that is for sale. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) But where does it say that a promotional single is something that is sold? Just because about.com calls it a promo single doesn't make it so. You used the SAME EXACT argument with TFM and countless singles. You (and other users) stated that just because some sites call something a CD, EP, or single, doesn't make it so. Same exact situation. Until you can provide a source that specifically says promotional singles=paid downloads, this info does not belong in the article. Greekboy (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is not needed. top40.about has already been used for much information in GA articles. And, um yeah. It says Do It Liked This is a promo single on iTunes, which means it's for sale. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Single=Music. Technically promo singles are sent out in promo packages, or EPKs that usually include info about the artist and about the song. The "single" part is just an element of the release. Once again, regarding About.com, there has been disputes about it and that is more than obvious. Bring it up with WP:RS if you wish to include it. You want to add the source to the article, so the burden lies with you. Besides, you can't even use that source or any other to source a paid download as a promotional single unless it explicitly states that is what a promotional single is. None of these sources state that. Greekboy (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- And both those discussions never directly call everything on About.com unreliable. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- How does that crush anything I've said? It never even mentions the word single. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Editors have already decided that top40.about is reliable, as you will see it in quite a few GA articles. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That proves nothing as it is 100 percent pure synthesis, exactly as outlined. You are taking two sources and combining them to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. And you can't cherry pick from sources. If part of them are unreliable, then who is to say the other part is not? Sources need to be 100 percent reliable. Hence the name: Reliable sources. About.com has already been discussed numerous times, and a quick search will show you that. Bring it up with WP:RS. Greekboy (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- If Do It Like This was sold only on iTunes and yet it is a promotional single, that proves the promos can be sold on iTunes. Subpages. About.com is often used in song articles as sources and is known for their critical reviews from their music website, which is what I sourced. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Synth means connect. I am not connecting two things, I am using one. The only thing that is sourced is that iTunes sells promotional singles, and those articles say that they did sell a promotional single. That does change some of it to say that iTunes can sell promotional singles. I claim nothing further. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC) How does a reliable source saying a promotional single for sale on iTunes not say that promos can be purchase? It is a lot better than the original research that makes up the rest of the article! XD --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- See above. Same situation. Greekboy (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Problems with Jenni Vartiainen's releases — promos or "normal" singles?
Hi!
I'm having a hard time figuring out whether some of the singles of Finnish Jenni Vartiainen are actually promos. Her official website[2] says that the only official single from Seili (album) is "En haluu kuolla tänä yönä" and this seems verified by at least iTunes,[3] OVI music shop,[4] MTV3 Store,[5] and DNA Music Shop.[6]
(However, the stores show also "Nettiin" as a single and her official website hasn't updated that she has music videos also for "Nettiin" and "Missä muruseni on", so they do mistakes...)
So, since none of those seem to present "Missä muruseni on" and "Duran Duran" as separate releases, should I mark them as promotional singles? They have been charted ("MMO" #1, "DD" #10) and "MMO" has sold gold according to IFPI Finland. -- Frous (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Korean mini-albums/EPs have "title tracks". Is this an example?
In most Korean mini-albums/EP and sometimes full length albums, they have what they call a 'title track' but they don't really release it as single. They just create a music video, send it to radio-airplay and then get the artist to perform it every week on most music programs in many television channels. I was wondering if they count as singles or not? Here's some mini-albums/EPs and albums that you can look at along with the title tracks in paranthesis: Une Année (Hush), Lupin (Lupin), Lights Go On Again (Beautiful) and Tonight (Tonight). Bleubeatle (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Not all promotoional recordings are free
And that needs to be made clear here and no especially in the era of the internet. I'd also like to remind everyone that promotional doesn't just mean a CD single released to radio dj, etc. Promotion according to webster in this particular case means:
the act of furthering the growth or development of something; especially : the furtherance of the acceptance and sale of merchandise through advertising, publicity, or discounting
No where in that definition does it say free so for example if a song is released not to radio but to digital download and it is "from" a soundtrack to a movie then it is promoting the movie. you need to update your terms on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- What kind of logic? What you are citing is promotion, not promotional single. Huge amount of WP:OR is going on here. Zac 21:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)