Talk:Disclosure discography
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
DJ Mixes section
editIs there a limit to what can be listed here? They have countless DJ sets you can find on Soundcloud or YouTube, for various music magazines (FACT, Fader, etc.) and others (Essential Mix, charity stream for Red Cross, etc.). Are we only adding the ones you can find on Apple Music/Spotify or what?
09:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.136.3 (talk)
stimulation?
editcheck youtube. Tangy 303 Mamet Sauce (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Disclosure discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602213825/http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p%2Fmusicvideo%2Fmusic%2Farchive%2Findex_test.jsp&ct=240001&arch=t&lyr=2013&year=2013&week=15 to http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p%2Fmusicvideo%2Fmusic%2Farchive%2Findex_test.jsp&ct=240001&arch=t&lyr=2013&year=2013&week=15
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6QbUzXLwK?url=http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesaria-charts-accreditations-albums-2014.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesaria-charts-accreditations-albums-2014.htm
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6QbWDqX3X?url=http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesaria-charts-accreditations-singles-2014.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesaria-charts-accreditations-singles-2014.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Citing sources
edit@Ss112: Regarding your recent edit summary, I went on through all that effort to find a better WP:SECONDARY source for those songs, which should be the ideal goal when implementing these sort of vendor links. The guidelines from WP:RS state, "[...] e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." If these reliable sources state that the song is a single, it should be trusted right? Since it's reliable. We adapt info from those sources. If what you're saying is true, every single track should consist of iTunes links, since a song released through there is a "single". There won't be any need to use secondary sources. I normally understand your standpoints from previous situations (Nova, the first edit I made on Wikipedia on Chainsmoker's first album with the unsourced genres) and have went along with it by not saying anything against, but this I don't understand. I really don't. Please explain. aNode (discuss) 14:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ANode: As I said in my edit summary, news sources will call every new song released a single, even if they're not. An artist can simply be releasing a new song from their upcoming album and without fail, there will be a news outlet, reliable or not, calling it a "single" in the article text somewhere. It doesn't mean a whole lot. I find it unnecessary that you're simply going out of your way to replace sources that don't need to be replaced. WP:RS does not say we need to do it, only "should". There's a lot of "should"s on Wikipedia, and it's wiser to focus and spend time on the more important things. Nobody (else) has an issue with using iTunes to simply prove a few tracks are singles. It's just not a contentious issue, so I don't think this is a matter of "should". Wikipedia will always, without fail, prefer news sources for every purpose, no matter what that purpose may be. I don't see the point of having a whole big discussion about it either. Ss112 14:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: That's true, but I would say that my main goal on Wikipedia is to strive for better citations throughout all pages (that's why I'm mass referencing all these discography pages), so for matters like this I really do try putting in better refs for these tracks. I have no problem in using my time for this as I consider it an important thing, as I hope it would provide better verifability for the content here. Your concern is that if those songs aren't effectively singles and news outlets label them as so (probably a minority if it's def not a single), we can always contest its place in the singles section. But as for now, there is an iTunes link, and there are news articles covering the song as a "single". Thus we can't deny its place as a single, so we might as well replace the ITunes ref with a better secondary ref right? It will improve the Wiki as a whole seeing its preference for news links. If I do accidentally put in a non-single track as a single one day though, I'm hoping you can step in to correct me. aNode (discuss) 14:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ANode: In future, in most cases, you just don't need to do it. It doesn't matter if you don't see it as wasting your own time—it's not necessary to do. iTunes out and out proves something is a single; news sources are giving their opinion of what is a single, which is basically every song released on its own. Also, if somebody reverts you, don't while discussing it restore your edits. This can be seen as disruptive, no matter the circumstances. Doesn't matter if you have a policy, guideline or essay to back up what you're saying—it's WP:BRD. Thank you. Ss112 15:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Welp, it's unfortunate to see efforts at improving something described as unncessary. I don't see how I can prove my points without pointing out the specific guidelines, which you seem to brush aside. As for WP:BRD, I can point out that WP:BRD-NOT consists of "not a justification for imposing one's own view" (in which your view is a strong preference for iTunes links, which is arguably the second-best choice here), and the second option(?), "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." (you seem to dislike using news outlets based on your view that they call every track a single). If you would like to discuss further I would appreciate it, lest we end it here. I won't touch the current page further. (On your latest summary, the Pitchfork link is indeed inadequate so instead I can find a new source if you need me to. As for the Ultimanum thing I haven't seen a recent source for it so I'm not too bothered with updating it.) aNode (discuss) 16:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ANode: Oh, I'm very familiar with what all aspects of WP:BRD state. However, I think most users accept that reverts can be seen as imposing one's view of something by thinking what somebody else added isn't needed (hence why the revert happened), and of course it then follows that it's because that user doesn't like the changes (otherwise what else would they have reverted for?). Most don't see those as excuses for not following BRD, because then we'd have editors continuing to edit war because of those few exceptions and citing them in every case. We'd get nowhere. Sure, plenty of users don't follow it in the heat of the moment, but it's more so the principle of it. Ss112 02:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Whatever you say, I guess. But as for the current situation, there's a new single up, and it's unsourced. For this situation, is there a need to source it, and may I cite it with a reliable news outlet source? aNode (discuss) 04:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ANode: Sure, go for it. My point is just not needing to replace existing sources. Ss112 04:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
aNode (discuss) 04:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: By the way, in the extended plays section for this page, does the "The Face (The Remixes)" thing count as a real EP? It seems to be a compilation remix album for me, rather than an original EP by Disclosure. I'll remove it if it's not an actual EP. aNode (discuss) 07:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ANode: Sure, go for it. My point is just not needing to replace existing sources. Ss112 04:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Whatever you say, I guess. But as for the current situation, there's a new single up, and it's unsourced. For this situation, is there a need to source it, and may I cite it with a reliable news outlet source? aNode (discuss) 04:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ANode: Oh, I'm very familiar with what all aspects of WP:BRD state. However, I think most users accept that reverts can be seen as imposing one's view of something by thinking what somebody else added isn't needed (hence why the revert happened), and of course it then follows that it's because that user doesn't like the changes (otherwise what else would they have reverted for?). Most don't see those as excuses for not following BRD, because then we'd have editors continuing to edit war because of those few exceptions and citing them in every case. We'd get nowhere. Sure, plenty of users don't follow it in the heat of the moment, but it's more so the principle of it. Ss112 02:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: Welp, it's unfortunate to see efforts at improving something described as unncessary. I don't see how I can prove my points without pointing out the specific guidelines, which you seem to brush aside. As for WP:BRD, I can point out that WP:BRD-NOT consists of "not a justification for imposing one's own view" (in which your view is a strong preference for iTunes links, which is arguably the second-best choice here), and the second option(?), "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." (you seem to dislike using news outlets based on your view that they call every track a single). If you would like to discuss further I would appreciate it, lest we end it here. I won't touch the current page further. (On your latest summary, the Pitchfork link is indeed inadequate so instead I can find a new source if you need me to. As for the Ultimanum thing I haven't seen a recent source for it so I'm not too bothered with updating it.) aNode (discuss) 16:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ANode: In future, in most cases, you just don't need to do it. It doesn't matter if you don't see it as wasting your own time—it's not necessary to do. iTunes out and out proves something is a single; news sources are giving their opinion of what is a single, which is basically every song released on its own. Also, if somebody reverts you, don't while discussing it restore your edits. This can be seen as disruptive, no matter the circumstances. Doesn't matter if you have a policy, guideline or essay to back up what you're saying—it's WP:BRD. Thank you. Ss112 15:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: That's true, but I would say that my main goal on Wikipedia is to strive for better citations throughout all pages (that's why I'm mass referencing all these discography pages), so for matters like this I really do try putting in better refs for these tracks. I have no problem in using my time for this as I consider it an important thing, as I hope it would provide better verifability for the content here. Your concern is that if those songs aren't effectively singles and news outlets label them as so (probably a minority if it's def not a single), we can always contest its place in the singles section. But as for now, there is an iTunes link, and there are news articles covering the song as a "single". Thus we can't deny its place as a single, so we might as well replace the ITunes ref with a better secondary ref right? It will improve the Wiki as a whole seeing its preference for news links. If I do accidentally put in a non-single track as a single one day though, I'm hoping you can step in to correct me. aNode (discuss) 14:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
