Talk:Wait (Maroon 5 song)

Lists in infobox parameters

Please note: Using flatlist serves absolutely no purpose since the params in question use class=hlist.Template:Infobox song#Parameters states:

For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of the |class=hlist is preferred as it offers a benefit to users of screen readers (see Wikipedia:Accessibility for more information on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). To use |class=hlist, format the items as a normal bulleted list; don't use other list templates or <br/>. For example:

| format        =
*Item one
*Item two
*Item three

will be displayed as a horizontal list separated by middots:

• Format   Item one
• Item two
• Item three

(emphasis added). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced material

@TheRedundancy125: I have deleted this recently added material because it comes without a source. Please provide a source before restoring it. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

iTunes as RS

@DovahDuck: Regarding you concern here, I have discussed this with a number of regular editors in the Wikialbum project and they agree with WP:NOTRSMUSIC, which says:

Online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.com should also be avoided. It can be seen as inappropriate to directly link to a site where one can purchase the subject in question. Wikipedia's role should not be used to advance the sale of an album. Generally speaking, all of the information found on online retailers can be found in other sources. Songwriters, track listings and lengths, producers, record label, etc., may be sourced directly from the actual album covers and liner notes. Template:Cite AV media notes "is used to create citations for print liner notes from albums, DVDs, CDs and similar audio-visual media." If AllMusic is used for dates, then check that the dates given are not contradictory – such as recording and release dates being the same – and consider finding another source for dates for pre-internet-era releases.

I originally didn't like the policy--because it made it difficult to verify released date--but then I noticed that basically the articles on the big ticket music items are often completely filled with these refs to music purchasing sites, put in by IPs and replaced very quickly if you delete them. If you try to discuss with the IPs they never do discuss. Never! I believe the IPs are automated by the companies. I'm pretty sure they are using Wikipedia for marketting, and I think the others on the Wikialbum project came to a similar conclusion.

I think the policy on using iTunes as a ref, has changed, and like I said, now I agree with it. I don't want Wikipedia to be used to get YouTube clicks, Amazon and iTunes sales. If they want to buy that stuff, they can use Google. We are an encyclopedia, not a store and commercial site.

Please see the discussion here and let me know what you think: Talk:Cold_(Maroon_5_song)#Track_listing.

And just to be clear, I don't suspect you of working for them. You talk and sound like a regular editor!  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Maroon_5#Mention_of_this_article_regarding_references_to_Youtube_videos. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

See also: WT:ALBUMS. A number of discussions on this subject there and in the archives. --David Tornheim (talk)

I better understand where you're coming from now, I appreciate your detailed response. --DovahDuck (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@DovahDuck: Thanks. And I appreciate where you are coming from as well. I plan to continue to remove the iTunes & YouTube refs (and similar stuff that looks more like advertising rather that proper sourcing) from music articles. If that concerns you, let me know, and I will stop and we can discuss.

If you do want to discuss further, I wouldn't mind to have a centralized discussion place where all the people who have expressed concerns in favor or opposed to the use of these sources can participate, a place that I could refer people to, rather than the long list of past discussions I have given you. This is now a new one too. I'm all ears for that.

Do you have any suggestions for the best way I should handle it when someone like yourself raises similar objections to my deleting one of these refs so that we don't have so many separate discussions. Or do you think that's just the way it has to be?

I have considered making my own page off my account to express and summarize my opinions, but I see problems with linking policy discussions or decisions to user accounts rather than keeping them in a non-neutral place. As one problem, say I go to the talk page of an article like this, and refer to a personal page I control (or someone else does), but later I decide to substantially change it or even delete the page.

Another possibility is that I just have some standard language, like a template, that I paste to the talk page. It wouldn't have that problem. I'm all ears.

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative RS for the ref

@DovahDuck: Based on our discussion above, do you mind if I (or you) delete that particular iTunes ref in the release history section? I tried clicking on the link, and it doesn't even work for me. An alternative might be:

• Staff, B. P. "Maroon 5 Releases New Single & Video for "Wait" (LISTEN)". BassPlayer.com. Retrieved 2020-01-01.

However, it has release dates in 2018. The claim that there was a promotional single that came out in 2017 does not seem to appear in any secondary WP:RS. I tried a couple of Google searches, such as of "digital download release Wait Maroon 5 promotional 2017" and found nothing appropriate. I did find it mentioned in our article for Red Pill Blues, but that one had a ref. to the band's Facebook page, and I deleted that ref.

My feeling is that if the digital release is mentioned nowhere in secondary sources (except for IMDb which we consider unreliable), it should not be mentioned at all, and only what is actually mentioned in secondary sources should be included. In essence, if it is not in the secondary sources, then shouldn't we just delete that line of the table (or leave it as "citation needed")? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah I don't mind if it gets deleted David Tornheim, however, do you know if archiving a primary source would be a good alternative to just deleting it or keeping it within the article's references? As far as I'm aware, you can't actually purchase anything through an archived link, which can help in reducing the amount of potential promotion that might be happening on Wikipedia through these IPs. Archiving these links can also help in the verification of release dates too and prevent possible contradictions within secondary sources. --DovahDuck (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)