Talk:World War Joy

“Unsourced”

So clearly the World War Joy EP is sourced including the credits and Magnolia removed it without even looking into it. The World War Joy album tracklist is unsourced but we can see from the WWJ temporary cover the order of the tracklist is correct. I’m trying to find sources for the promotion section which is, again, removed by Magnolia. What are your thoughts on this? 115.161.209.35 (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC) @Ss112: 115.161.209.35 (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Magnolia has performed 3 reverts within 24 hours right now. 115.161.209.35 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the credits, as they are sourced to Tidal now, which has credits all can access via a browser. I don't know what the issue with those were, but I can't imagine there still are issues. I have left out the promotion section because that was not sourced. As for "Takeaway", it's not officially been uploaded anywhere as part of the build-an-album process the Chainsmokers are doing with this album, but its existence is confirmed (and sourced on the article) and there are versions of the cover art with that track uncovered out there (unofficially, of course), so I have commented it out for now. If you have any issues with Magnolia's number of reverts, you can report them at WP:AN/EW. Ss112 11:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: My edits were not part of a content dispute; two editors continued to add unsourced content, and I removed the unsourced content, per WP:V (an overriding policy). If "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", per WP:EW, I'm not sure what your issue is. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Oh yes, because the only situation where something constitutes edit warring is it it's a content dispute. Jesus Christ, arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. I'd like to see you try to convince administrators that you weren't in fact edit warring by performing four reverts on one article. Editors have been blocked for less. You don't get a free pass because you think the exceptions on WP:EW give you one, sorry. Ss112 15:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for clarity... 3RR applies in all circumstances except when reverting obvious copyright infringement, serious BLP violations and naked vandalism. That's it. If someone is disruptively adding unsourced material after being warned then bring it to the attention of an admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Four Songs

@Futuresay22:, why are "Family", "See the Way", and "P.S. I Hope You're Happy" listed as singles here? These songs were released with the album, have no radio releases, and there are no reliable sources that are calling these singles. "The Reaper" is a single because it was released to Australian radio. CountyCountry (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ss112:, @Tbone49:, and @Damntcsarg: into discussion. CountyCountry (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to chime in here to say being serviced to radio is NOT a requirement for a song to be classified as a single. There is no requirement for this to happen before we can call a song a single on Wikipedia. As long as a source calls a song a single, generally that's enough. That might be a low bar, but that's where it's at. It's not 1980; songs are singles if they're released for independent download and streaming in my opinion, and as "Family" etc have their own cover art(s), I consider them singles. I doubt most of the editors saying "a song is a single when it's played on the radio" even listen to the radio, so I don't know why y'all place so much importance in it. There's one proposed guideline that states that a radio release is one aspect of what makes a song a single, but it's not a passed guideline nor a policy, which would make it a requirement. That being said, I don't require further pings. I created this page, it's on my watchlist. Ss112 18:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you point to which source calls the Blink collab a single? I was trying to corroborate the claim as I don't think it's justified. Beyond not being pushed to radio it has very little traction for a Chainsmokers track in general, nevermind a single... Granted a "single" could just not perform well, I just mention that 'cause there are many other Chainsmokers tracks that are not considered singles, were released in a similar way and have a lot more views. There's a Billboard article cited that mentions the track will be released in the Chainsmokers' pattern of releasing each track as a single release, however beyond the fact the article is arguably incorrect[track was released same time as several others on the album's release date[no unique release, just a YouTube lyric video like many non singles receive]], it reads as if Billboard is using "single" as a synonym for individual, not the industry term of either promo/radio single. The track doesn't really have anything to cement it as a single. Even if you grant radio release not required, singles usually have something to make them singles, like video or a unique release date not shared with the album... The Blink collab has none of those. Unique cover art does not make a song a single, I can think of many non singles with their own cover art when it comes to large artists... Also, if it's not released to radio and has no video wouldn't that make it a promo single at the absolute most? Thanks. - PikaWTF (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]