Talk:So Far Away (Martin Garrix and David Guetta song)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Ellie
[edit]@Hayman30: Ellie Goulding is not officially credited in the song. Just because sources discuss her, doesn't mean her template should be there. Templates are placed in song articles to regard their official artists not former ones. — Zawl 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- She doesn't have to be "officially credited" to be related to the song. Goulding initially being featured on the song is not false information, reliable sources and Garrix himself has confirmed it, so why shouldn't her template stay? Also please point to policy regarding your artist template claims. I see absolutely no reason to remove Goulding's template, especially when this isn't even her singles template. This article is placed in the "related" group under Goulding's artist template. Hayman30 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are no actual policies that directly address the template issue but WP:SOURCE states unpublished materials are not considered reliable which metaphorically in this case, implies that Ellie Goulding as an unpublished featured artist of the song is less preferential than the actual artists. Besides, her template shows her albums and other works, which may confuse readers into thinking she has a significant connection to the song which she doesn't (other than being on the unreleased version). She's not even credited as a songwriter. Either way, the burden of proof is on you for asserting that "unofficial artists get free credit because sources say so." — Zawl 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Lol what a strange interpretation of the policy. It's referring to the source itself, not the subject of the source. These articles from reliable sources are not unpublished material, they're still online. They explicitly confirm the fact that Goulding was originally featured on the song but later departed due to label disputes. Despite that, the version of the song with Goulding featured is not unpublished material either. They previewed the entire thing at Tomorrowland and that means it was already made available to the public, they just end up not using her version for the so-called "official label release". Furthermore, both Garrix and Goulding, even Dya has confirmed Goulding former appearance on the song, this wasn't made up. Goulding is undeniably a notable artist and her appearance on an initial version of this song is not trivial information. She doesn't have to be "officially featured" on this song in order to have a connection with it. And no, this won't confuse readers, as I mentioned, it was put in the "related" group, so no confusion there. We're not here to help Goulding's label to promote her, so we don't need to, and will never hide what her label doesn't want people to know. Also, Goulding is not an unofficial artist. She was officially participated on a previous version of the song. The term "unofficial artist" would refer to people who covered the song, for example, on YouTube. The "free credit" part makes absolutely no sense, please elaborate on that if you wish. I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish with the pointless dispute, just to get her template removed because "I think she has no input on this song"? We write articles with reference to reliable sources, not your own belief. Hayman30 (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I started an RfC in the thread below. #RfC - January 11. — Zawl 08:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Lol what a strange interpretation of the policy. It's referring to the source itself, not the subject of the source. These articles from reliable sources are not unpublished material, they're still online. They explicitly confirm the fact that Goulding was originally featured on the song but later departed due to label disputes. Despite that, the version of the song with Goulding featured is not unpublished material either. They previewed the entire thing at Tomorrowland and that means it was already made available to the public, they just end up not using her version for the so-called "official label release". Furthermore, both Garrix and Goulding, even Dya has confirmed Goulding former appearance on the song, this wasn't made up. Goulding is undeniably a notable artist and her appearance on an initial version of this song is not trivial information. She doesn't have to be "officially featured" on this song in order to have a connection with it. And no, this won't confuse readers, as I mentioned, it was put in the "related" group, so no confusion there. We're not here to help Goulding's label to promote her, so we don't need to, and will never hide what her label doesn't want people to know. Also, Goulding is not an unofficial artist. She was officially participated on a previous version of the song. The term "unofficial artist" would refer to people who covered the song, for example, on YouTube. The "free credit" part makes absolutely no sense, please elaborate on that if you wish. I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish with the pointless dispute, just to get her template removed because "I think she has no input on this song"? We write articles with reference to reliable sources, not your own belief. Hayman30 (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are no actual policies that directly address the template issue but WP:SOURCE states unpublished materials are not considered reliable which metaphorically in this case, implies that Ellie Goulding as an unpublished featured artist of the song is less preferential than the actual artists. Besides, her template shows her albums and other works, which may confuse readers into thinking she has a significant connection to the song which she doesn't (other than being on the unreleased version). She's not even credited as a songwriter. Either way, the burden of proof is on you for asserting that "unofficial artists get free credit because sources say so." — Zawl 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
RfC - January 11
[edit]The consensus is to exclude Ellie Goulding's musical artist template from the article.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a disagreement with another editor about whether a musical artist's template, which is usually placed at the bottom of their song articles, should be placed at the bottom of this article which is about a song that the artist (Ellie Goulding) is not a part of, other than on the initial unreleased version (which will never be released because her label negated all agreements and talks). The other editor's claim is that since there are significant sources about Ellie Goulding being a part of the unreleased version, her template should be placed in the article with no regards to Wikipedia customs. The dispute is right above this thread #Ellie. — Zawl 08:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think Ellie Goulding is involved in this track enough to be included in this article more than in the "Background" section, and even then I think her involvement is highlighed more than is absolutely necessary: She contributed session vocals which were ultimately not used in the released version of a track, for whatever reason, which is a fairly common practice in the music industry and not particularly notable. If she'd had an involvement in writing or production then I'd consider mentioning her a bit more, but dropping (clarification: placing) an artist template is absolutely unwarranted in my opinion. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 16:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alfiepates: Would you like to clarify what you meant by "dropping"? Placing or removing the template? Hayman30 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: Placing, sorry! I should have been more clear :) -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 17:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alfiepates: Thank you for your swift reply. Now that you've made you clarification, I'd like to ask you a few questions. Does the artist's level of involvement on the song decide whether their template should be placed? Being low on participation means the artist is unrelated to the song? I think whether the artist has played a significant role in the production of the song does not decide whether they are related or unrelated to the song, at least there's a connection. Besides, I don't even think that's the case here. Undoubtedly, Goulding is a notable artist and her former appearance has brought a lot of attention to this song, as evidenced by sources in the "background" section. Nevertheless, I must confess that we both have a lot of assumptions in our views, especially on Goulding's level of contribution on the song, this is what the sources are unable to tell. However, I think Goulding being featured on the original version of this song is an undisputable fact and that should be a factor in defining whether she is related to the song, hence the template. Hayman30 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: Thanks, and likewise! As far as I can tell, Goulding recorded session vocals (she's not credited for writing or production, so she was most likely not involved in that at all) for a track which ended up not being used, and Garrix/Guetta used these on some Demo versions of the track that they played well before the track's official release. This happens all the time with session vocalists - the only minor difference here is that Goulding is an "established artist", hence the suggestion that she (and the singers who ended up on the released track) were "guest vocalists". I think it's important to distinguish appearance on releases from demos and stuff that goes on "behind the scenes" - the "original version" here is the released version with the Scott/Dya vocals. Since Goulding wasn't involved with this release (hence her not being credited, and the track not being part of her discography), I'd heavily lean towards "No". However, I do think it's worth mentioning the fact that she recorded vocals that weren't used, I just don't think we should focus on it or make any suggestion that it's "her song", because it really isn't and from the looks of it her label don't particularly care for it! -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alfiepates: Thank you for your swift reply. Now that you've made you clarification, I'd like to ask you a few questions. Does the artist's level of involvement on the song decide whether their template should be placed? Being low on participation means the artist is unrelated to the song? I think whether the artist has played a significant role in the production of the song does not decide whether they are related or unrelated to the song, at least there's a connection. Besides, I don't even think that's the case here. Undoubtedly, Goulding is a notable artist and her former appearance has brought a lot of attention to this song, as evidenced by sources in the "background" section. Nevertheless, I must confess that we both have a lot of assumptions in our views, especially on Goulding's level of contribution on the song, this is what the sources are unable to tell. However, I think Goulding being featured on the original version of this song is an undisputable fact and that should be a factor in defining whether she is related to the song, hence the template. Hayman30 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: Placing, sorry! I should have been more clear :) -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 17:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alfiepates: Would you like to clarify what you meant by "dropping"? Placing or removing the template? Hayman30 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- The closest guidelines I can see is that WP:PERFNAV states for performances "Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in", and WP:FILMNAV allows "a primary creator of the material in question". Neither of these address songs (unless they mean 'performance' in a weirdly broad sense), but IMHO if a non-primary creator can't be navboxed in a film article, they also shouldn't be navboxed in a song article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.