This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lorde, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.LordeWikipedia:WikiProject LordeTemplate:WikiProject LordeLorde articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
I have a few issues with the way RazorEyeEdits has reformatted the release history section. Firstly, separating "commercial" and "promotional" release is original research and confusing. In the modern day, where songs can be purchased online as an album track, separate single releases are becoming less common. Sending a song to radio is often the only release as song gets, and is just as valid as a separate digital download release. Secondly, the "catalog" number (notice this article is written in NZ English, therefore "catalogue" is appropriate) seems to be complete OR, as I cannot find this number in the citation given. Adabow (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The definition of Promotional single is literally A single released to radio. Also, A citation to Discogs would be more appropriate, but editors seem to dislike Discogs citations. I have the Tennis Court EP on Vinyl, and I can confirm the no. for that is correct at the very least; otherwise, it is not original research. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
You can cite your copy by using {{cite music release notes}}. Radio is a commerical release. In fact, today, most singles that are released after an album is released do not receive a purchaseable release. See this article from Billboard, relating to "XO" and "Drunk in Love released as the CHR (top 40) and urban (R&B/hip-hop) singles, respectively from Beyonce, with only radio release. Adabow (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
If only I had a dollar for every time someone has attempted to back up their argument with an article from a magazine incorrectly labeling promotional singles! Labels, magazines and such mislabel Promos as singles because:
1. To gain more publicity and commercial gain to sell the song off an album.
2. Due to misinformation, undeliberately, and understandingly, because of example no. 1.
It's hardly consensus when it's just a bunch of Wikipedia users agreeing on something they don't know much about. I mean, I don't claim to know everything, but I am smart enough to understand the "PROMO ONLY - NOT FOR SALE" sticker they slap on Promo CDs have a meaning. You're right. They are quite messy discussions. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia bringing free, unbiased and easy-access information to the public, which is why consensuses made by people who are obviously not professionals shouldn't really be worshiped as our very own Ten Commandments; I believe we really should be following the rules of the industry and not making up our own rules simply for the sake of organisation. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
An extremely reliable industry source (Billboard) discusses the releases of songs as singles, referring to their radio add dates. I don't understand what further evidence you would like me to provide. Adabow (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
You either missed the point or didn't read my comment properly. Billboard, much like a significant proportion of the population, has mistaken what a single is. Much like how you would mistake the words mass and weight; it's simple as that! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 07:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your point seems to be based on your opinion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And no, a physics magazine would not make that mistake, and similarly a music industry magazine would not mistake what a single is. I have provided recent evidence to back up the radio release=single idea. If you know of reasonably recent reliable evidence that contradicts this, then please provide it here. Adabow (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Evidence? I've given you my evidence, and rebutted yours. Show me evidence that the music industry itself has changed it's structure. It hasn't changed; it's still the same. Radio singles still have that "Promo Only" sticker on them, do they not? Singles still exist as a commercial product, do they not? I've been saying that this entire debate, you know! By the way, what kind of argument is "Your point seems to be based on your opinion"? You have an opinion too, but I don't say your opinion is invalid just because I'm debating you! That's just rude! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
You haven't given any evidence, you have just asserted that a "Promotional single is literally A single released to radio", and that magazines often mislabel songs as singles. Yes, the music industry has changed. CD singles are few and far between, and vinyl is a very niche format. The vast majority of songs are now sold digitally. Once an album has been released, there is no need for a label to create a separate item for a single on digital shops, when consumers can purchase it as a track from the album. Record labels receive royalties for having a song played on the radio. Radio stations must be told which songs the labels want them to play. They want to build enthusiasm for the song so that listeners (a) have the radio play the song more and generate airing royalties and (b) drive sales for the song. I know you have outlined your mistrust of Billboard, but here is an article calling "Team" and "Glory and Gore" singles, despite neither being released for separate sale, yet both have been (or will be) released to US radio. It also notes that "Tennis Court" was going to be the third US single, as it was slated for mainstream rock radio release [1]. Going through your contributions history it seems you have a problem with this idea in other articles too, so can I ask that if you still disagree you raise this issue at a wider forum, such as WT:SONGS and/or WT:WPMU? Cheers, Adabow (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The song was sent to US modern rock radio sometime in late May or early June. [dead link] If anyone can find a date for this release and/or an archiving machine (other than archive.is/archive.today) which can generate a decent permanent copy of [2], it would be much appreciated. Adabow (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've managed to generate a copy here — obviously it doesn't appear as correctly formatted as it should be but it still manages to retain the page's content, so I think we can do with this for now. Holiday56 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
