Wikipedia

Talk:Guitar Songs/Archive 1

< Talk:Guitar Songs
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Your Power in topic Merge?
Archive 1

Is Guitar Songs an EP or single?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's only one song on the A-side and one song on the B-side. Itunes calls it a single for this reason. Should it be called a single or EP? Kart2401real (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually asked the same question in this talk page a few hours after its release (ping @Kart2401real). See this diff. However, there are a preponderance of sources that describe Guitar Songs as an EP - see the diff for three out of many - including the Official Charts Company (Billie Eilish surprise-released a morose new acoustic-led EP last week and its two tracks - TV and The 30th). When it comes to concerns like this, we go by what the majority of reliable sources say; as far as I know, relatively few non-streaming-service sources call GS a single. Even then, per SINGLESCRIT, having a release be marked as a single on iTunes or Apple Music is not necessarily indicative that the release in question is a single. To quote SINGLESCRIT, [in Itunes,] "single" is present next to all independent releases, official or not. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 05:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)

5x expanded by Your Power (talk). Self-nominated at 07:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC).

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments2 people in discussion

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Guitar Songs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) 03:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Nice to see you Elias! —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace, hello, and likewise! We meet again; thank you for picking up this article  . I hope your family are safe and well, and welcome back to editing. Will get back to you in ~4 hours, once my classes end ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 03:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Lede and infobox

  • I see some attempts at flowery prose that I think accidentally come off as a bit awkward.
    • Here's an example: "The EP's release came as a surprise: Eilish had grown tired of doing promotion for new music, and she wanted to share new songs to her fans as soon as she can". That she's tired of promoting her music may belong in a section but it has no place in the article's third sentence. There's an accidental tense change at the end ("as soon as she can", "can" should be "could")
      • Good catch - trimmed those bits
  • during the Manchester concert of her Happier Than Ever, The World Tour needs fixing, I get stating the tour name but it doesn't make much sense like this.
    • I piped the world tour link and reworded the whole thing. Should flow more smoothly now
  • "via" flows better as "through"
    • Done

Background

  • "A draft of the court decision was leaked online, in May 2022" contains an unneeded comma
    • Removed
  • I think the leaked draft was a bit more than a suggestion
    • Reworded this since I think the original word did not convey the meaning I intended
  • The part about her third album can be safely omitted since this article is not about that.
    • The rationale is true, but I disagree with removing it. The "release" section discusses how Eilish did not want to wait to release these songs via a third studio album.
  • I'm just not seeing the importance of TV being her first preview since 2017. Doesn't seem encyclopedic; to me it reads as trivia. At most I would put it in the TV article, but probably not even there.
    • I changed the last section of that sentence to make it more relevant
  • What did "Eilish g[e]t the idea" for? This is unclear
  • You don't specify that "Boyfriends" is a song. A reader isn't expected to know Wikipedia's stylizations and therefore may think its an album, book, or other work.
    • Detail about the "Boyfriends" performance removed; I feel like that belongs better in the "TV" article anyway

Music and lyrics

  • "Over an acoustic guitar" is what it should be, right?
    • Yep, that should be fixed now
  • You did the "attributed to multiple refs" thing in another place, but not in this section's fourth sentence. Did you do this on purpose?
    • Nope, that should be fixed now
  • "'TV', the first in the track list" the reader should know this is a song by now, but you should still specify that.
    • Fair enough
  • "Drawing primarily from her recent life experiences" is unhelpfully vague, imo
    • "drawing" changed to "inspired"
  • "to blame herself for the issues she currently faces in life", it won't be current eventually, so rephrase this
    • Rephrased

Release

  • The "Without prior warning" link doesn't feel appropriate. WP:EASTEREGG comes to mind
    • I would not really say it's an easter egg because readers can glean from context clues what "without prior warning" pertains to --- the nature of the release --- so the article that comes up would not induce astonishment. I moved that bit after the release date so this meaning becomes clearer
  • "By that date, Eilish and Finneas had written only the material for the EP" not sure what this is supposed to mean
    • Clarified
  • "Eilish and Finneas headed for the Amoeba Music record store in Hollywood to play 'TV'" feels too positive in tone, specifically "headed for", maybe replace that
    • Better wording
  • You don't link Manila here. Most people don't know what that is. In fact as I type this I can't remember whether that's in Singapore or the Phillipines.
    • Not done. Obviously hyperbole but "most people don't know what that is" is big [citation needed] energy. Manila is a national capital, specifically the capital of the Philippines, and one of the densest cities in the world. It has more people in it than Manchester, which isn't wikilinked here. I'd expect the general reader, who are not on either extreme of the demographic bias spectrum, to be "at least somewhat familiar" with the city as MOS:OL puts it.
      • @Your Power: Being a national capital is not a broad indicator of knowledge, neither is population. Lahore and Hyderabad have populations of over 10 million, but this article is about about an EP by an American artist. Do most non-Indian (or even Indian) Americans, or Europeans, or Africans know those two cities? I would say no. Same story with national capitals, Palikir is a start-class article that gets 3,000 views per month, without as much as a picture, and many other capital cities. "During the tour's Manila concert" doesn't specify what Manila is; also not contextually clear unless you've read about concert tours and understand the writing style/jargon. That's why we add links to begin with, to explain without having to explain. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Also, I think it's a bit unfair to bring up demographic bias without being certain you've checked your own, with all due respect. You're from the Philippines, so of course you'll know Manila. I'm from the US, and I do know what Manila is, but it didn't come to mind immediately when I read the passage. My knowledge of this country is limited to the following: 1) it's composed of islands, 2) it's in Asia, 3) LGBT people do not have an easy time there. That is less-than-surface-level knowledge about a whole country, and I suspect many Americans know even less than that. Most of us can't even name all 50 of our states. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
        @VersaceSpace: Yeah, of course. I obviously should and do know about my own demographic bias in this - that is why my particular wording in the reply was "either extreme of the ... spectrum" because I fall on one extreme. Regardless, in hindsight I acknowledge that my argument about what determines the "popularity" of the city fell flat now that you have countered what I said, and I apologise.
        But "how many people recognise this city" is besides the point. Saying "Eilish is American, so readers might not expect mentions of non-American cities to be relevant" is a fairer, stronger argument for the wikilinking - I got the same argument for WLing Manchester in the "TV" FAC, and I had no problem implementing that suggestion. So it would only be fair for me to do the same here - both with Manila and Manchester. With that, this suggestion can be considered   Done. Again apologies that we had to go on a somewhat lengthy ramble here ^^; ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
        📝 "Don't get complacent..."         16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
        @Your Power: recognition and expectation are pretty much the same argument, the only difference being that the former is total. In both cases the reader stumbles with the text, which we don't want. I'm glad we came to a resolution —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Eilish remarked that it was hard to sing for her due to its personal lyrics" feels a bit wordy
    • Trimmed

Critical reception

  • "Prior to the release of the EP, 'TV' quickly became a favorite among Eilish's fans." didn't the songs release at the same time?
    • Yes, but "TV" received a preview (the tour performance) whereas "The 30th" didn't. Since fans already heard "TV" even before the EP was released, it became a fan favorite, at least according to the source(s).

Track listing

  • "Both" instead of "all" tracks
    • Template:Track listing has an all_writing parameter and it automatically produces "All tracks are written" regardless of how many tracks there are. Even then both ways are equally as valid, and hence I see no need to change it
      • "Both" would be more specific though, since there are exactly two tracks. If you're not able to change it due to the template, then it's fine —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall

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.

Why is Guitar Songs considered an EP despite not being extended playing?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It’s only one song on the A-side and one song on the B-side. Why is Guitar Songs considered an EP when it isn’t extended playing? Kart2401real (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kart2401real, please look at the invisible comment in the article's source code. "Even though streaming services brand it as a single, *do not change* the parameter to single. A preponderance of RS, including Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/billie-eilish-guitar-songs-best-new-music-1235117382/) and the Official Charts Company (https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/central-cee-dominates-the-official-trending-chart-with-new-track-doja__36972/), say Guitar Songs is an EP." Note that you already asked this question in the talk page archives here. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Continuing the discussion here. As said in the WT:FAC for "The 30th",

Oppose [FAC]: should be merged into Guitar Songs along with the only other song on that EP, 'TV'.
Indopug, respectfully, I invite you to take a good, hard look at WP:NSONG and to continue this discussion in Talk:Guitar Songs because this is way outside the purview of a FAC.

I assume you are attempting to evoke details these parts of NSONGS that say "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" and "the only coverage of a song" must not "occur in the context of reviews of the album". The word "review" there is doing some very heavy lifting, because it can be interpreted one of two ways. Are we referring to critical reviews of Guitar Songs? If so, this immediately makes "The 30th" notable by Wikipedia standards, since so much of the information about it occurs outside of such material. But I want us to abide by the spirit of MOS, so let us add articles about the release(s) into the mix for consideration.

This paragraph summarises everything about my argument, so read this first before proceeding to the wall of text below. The coverage around the debut performance of "TV" is enough to make it individually notable. There is enough coverage around "The 30th" in articles centred around the songs themselves rather than the EP's "story", as I like to put it, to make it notable. The sources that tell said stories make the EP notable. All three articles are notable.

Extended content

The two song articles exist because not only do we have enough coverage to flesh such articles out, the cited sources centre more on the details of the songs individually, i.e. a breakdown of the two, rather than collectively, i.e. analysing how these songs contribute to the EP's being. An album review gathers information about the songs, whether all of the songs or simply a sample, specifically to synthesise the commonalities between them and all we know about them into an overarching narrative. In this case, the notability goes to the EP itself and not the songs.

Let's get "TV" out of the way

Merging this is more misguided than merging "The 30th", and I feel the most confident in going against this. "TV" had lots of coverage from sources even before it was officially released through the EP. There are over 3 sources cited in its article that discuss it outside the context of the EP, and even when it was released, some articles still chose to focus on "TV" away from "The 30th", giving it individual notability. Case in point - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

"The 30th" is... more complicated

Since it is more complicated, this situation would require a more intricate analysis of the sources apart from a glance at the title to figure out notability. It does have this source [6]: one that, similar to the NYT piece, strips it away from the context of "TV" and Guitar Songs. Without a shadow of a doubt, this counts towards notability and is the easiest one to explain away.

Meanwhile... Much of the others cited in the article have titles written in some manner of "Billie Eilish releases 'TV' and 'The 30th'" or "Billie Eilish" Releases Two Songs". Once again, this structure tells us the sources give notability to the individual tracks rather than, or perhaps in addition to, the EP.

  • I want you to read this Uproxx piece. It is titled "Billie Eilish Releases TV and The 30th" and has the sentence "TV is finally out today, along with a brand new track titled The 30th, both on a double-single dubbed Guitar Songs".
    • With this structure, we can surmise that this article will focus more around the songs individually than the collection of songs itself.
    • But the more notable thing to focus on is that "TV" is merely mentioned here in passing.This article does not contribute to the notability of "TV". There is way more coverage around "The 30th" that it might as well virtually be an article about "The 30th". This, in despite the cited lines "Finneas and I really wanted these to be yours as soon as possible" and the opening sentence "Both of the songs are stripped-down, gentle ballads where Eilish’s vocals and incisive lyricism are the driving forces," which would otherwise make the Uproxx source structurally about the EP.
  • Now, while the title doesn't explicitly suggest such a thing, take this Rolling Stone piece. The structure here goes as follows: the first paragraph introduces us to Guitar Songs, tells us what the tracks are, and uses the next six paragraphs---half of which go to either TV or 30th---strictly to talk about the two songs. We get superficial, virtually zero coverage on how TV and 30th create a story that is Guitar Songs---whether the angle be through the composition, the lyrics, the reasons why Eilish released them by surprise, etc. Using basic semantics, one gets the impression this is a somewhat disjointed commentary on the two songs that happen to be part of an EP, rather than a commentary on the EP.
  • American Songwriter called "The 30th" as Eilish's tenth best song here. Once again the focus is not on GS but rather the two tracks; the fact it was "The 30th" specificaly that was ranked should be enough.

For an outside example of how structure is important in determining whether pairs of songs from a certain release are notable on their own, let's look at this Uproxx source. Does this make the extended, web-exclusive version of the album notable? No; it focuses on the two tracks. The existence of such coverage contributes to the notability of "PSA" and "Open Arms".

And what would count towards the EP's notability are the reviews for the EP itself. Have at these ones from Variety and People. While there is a discussion on the two songs by itself, Variety and People intersperse it with coverage about the lead-up to the EP, weaving some overarching story on the two songs. They highlight facts like why the two songs were released out of nowhere (quoting the "I don't want to wait until the next album cycle to put these songs on an album" line and mentioning how Eilish found their voice memos one day which moved her so much she knew she had to do the surprise drop); who produced and wrote both of the songs; and how these two songs were the only ones after her last album at the time. We also have the Manila Bulletin, the Guardian, and another Uproxx reference to consider.

‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 11:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, "at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic)." A song might be notable enough for its own article, but that does not necessarily mean it is better to have its own article. I think it is more understandable for readers to combine all of them into Guitar Songs, which has plenty of room for expansion. Just add a couple paragraphs to the composition and critical reception sections. After that's done, there isn't anything that "The 30th" or "TV" would cover that Guitar Songs wouldn't, so there's really no need for separate articles and they can be redirected to Guitar Songs. Heartfox (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you @Heartfox. I had not seen that before, so I was wondering what the rationale for the oppose was. In that case, give me a few moments and I'll be overhauling this article soon. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
    📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"     09:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guitar_Songs/Archive_1&oldid=1151021531"