Talk:Martin Garrix discography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2015

90.26.52.54 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Singles before "Animals"

The songs "ITSA", "Keygen", "Registration Code", "BFAM", "Torrent", "Error 404", and "Just Some Loops" were all released as singles before "Animals". Why do they keep getting removed after I add them? --Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Martin Garrix discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151130061221/https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/error-404-single/id623286167 to https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/error-404-single/id623286167

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus of Singles

Hello fellow editors!

I think the seven singles released this week should be placed under "Singles" and not "Promotional Singles" because these are going to be apart of his upcoming debut album. Also, may I ask what makes a single to be promotional? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment below, Support or Oppose if you agree or disagree with what I've said. @Xenryjake: @SpongePappy: @Shoesquashfan5000: @Ss112: @Lysvincent: @XAnio: @Sakida0: @Jakubik.v: @Lk95: @Alsee: @Javila200084898: @Eshan101: @Hheronnofficial: @Mn1548: @Parkywiki: @Oathkepper: @Danielfuinogl: @Timothe88: @Nathanaelsadgrove: @PotatoNinja: @Cries of Chaos: @Hellspring: @Binksternet: @Athomeinkobe: @LukeBlacklee: @RunnyAmiga: @Justin15w: @Agtx: @HakanIST: @Willondon:

<--- Comment below this line --->

@TheMagnificentist: This is weird. We're talking about removing one word and you're seeing consensus from, by my count, thirty people. That includes me even though I've never edited this article. Why not just do it with a summary reading "no apparent difference between 'promotional singles' and 'singles'" or something like that?

Anyway, as for the issue at hand, I support removal because yep, there's no apparent difference between a "promotional single" and a "single." If there were, it should have been explained by User:Shoesquashfan5000, the editor who added the section header here but didn't bother to include an edit summary. This is a good editor with a truly irritating, unfortunately common blind spot: they rarely explain themselves. When you don't use edit summaries, you're basically permitting any editor to revert you for any good faith reason. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: I support this, there is no real different between "promotional single" and a "single" for me either. It is very likely that the singles are going to be on his album (which COULD be announced tomorrow actually) so I guess we can safely assume that. Merging singles and promotional singles would be a good idea. --XAnio (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: I have difficulty understanding the concept of "singles" and "promotional singles". A while back, there was an issue I tried to get addressed that Garrix's pre-"Animals" singles were not listed, and when I did include them, they would get removed. I guess if they didn't chart, they're not singles?

I moved "Poison", "Bouncybob" and "Oops" to a new "promotional singles" section simply because they did not chart and were also free downloads; however, "Forbidden Voices", "Registration Code" and "Proxy" were also free downloads listed as singles here, so honestly I'm really confused about this section as a whole myself. In a similar issue, some songs on The Chainsmokers discography page got moved to a "promotional singles" section, but weren't those songs all released as singles? Can someone explain to me what a "promotional single" actually is? --Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Shoesquashfan5000: The rule governing this on this is probably at WP:Notability (music)#Songs, which says "That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Even if otherwise notable, material about a single may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." There's nothing telling editors to remove non-charting or otherwise non-notable official singles from artists' or discography pages. Unless I missed something, the removals of your work were not appropriate. Who was doing that? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: Someone by the name of Binksternet. They left summaries such as "no need for chart entries with no chart results", "singles with no chart results are not important". However, this was about a year ago, and Garrix's pre-"Animals" singles have stayed on the page for quite some time now. --Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Shoesquashfan5000: I imagine most of the people in that list of pings disregarded this conversation because they didn't see why they were looped in. I'm going to message that editor on their talk page with a specific request for input because while WP:NSONG is just a guideline, it still carries enough weight that explanations like that aren't don't seem to be really enough. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

First, what is the source for the tracklist of the "upcoming debut album" which some here think will be called +X (the article is up for deletion)? Second, a song is promotional if it is offered for free.

I don't think the free songs are important unless they charted. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Per WP:Notability (music)#Songs, a song doesn't have to chart (or to even be important, for that matter) to get listed at a discography page. If we're talking about a standalone article, that's different, but we're not. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Were you pointing to WP:SUBNOT? Yes, that guideline says non-notable songs can be listed in the discography. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Binksternet:

Heh, no, I'd never seen that before, although it kind of says what I'm saying, doesn't it? I honestly don't know for sure. This is the problem with pinging dozens of editors just because they once edited this or a nearby article: that group would inevitably include somebody who doesn't know anything.

Anyway, the relevant part of my link was what wasn't there. It seems like the primary basis on which we base most, if not all, song notability guidelines and it says nothing about removing non-hit singles from discographies. I know it's a stretch but I thought I was backed up by the text "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". We're supposed to merge text about non-notable songs to articles about the artists, like this one, not remove mentions of those songs entirely. Right? Or maybe not. I honestly don't know. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: I support the discussed removal of the "promotional singles" section. There is no clear definition of what should and should not be listed as a promotional single. If the basis is a free release, there are other songs such as "Forbidden Voices", "Registration Code", and "Proxy" as Shoesquashfan5000 mentioned, that should be moved to promotional singles. If the basis is each track's performance on charts, all songs pre-"Animals" should be promotional singles. Additionally, the promotional single "Bouncybob" has reached a spot on Billboard's Hot Dance/Electronic Songs. We should either clarify distinct qualifications a song has to meet to become a "regular" single versus a promotional single, or the promotional singles section should be removed. Xenryjake (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for responding! I think the "Promotional Singles" should be removed. Also to some of the editors I pinged, I just found your names in the edit history of this article and the main article. I figured that extra opinions would be necessary to this discussion. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Garrix 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/20130503004610/http://www.ifpi.se/wp-content/uploads/ to http://www.ifpi.se/wp-content/uploads/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Martin Garrix discography

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Martin Garrix discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MC":

• From Listen (David Guetta album): "Listen – David Guetta". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
• From The Weeknd: "Gold and Platinum Search". Music Canada. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 21 December 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Lotus (Christina Aguilera album): "Lotus Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved November 18, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

May 2019

Hi guys. Can we consider removing the uncharted singles from the Singles table and make a different table for them? It'll make it look shorter and better In my opinion. Feel free to leave a message about on this talkboard. The EDM Gug (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)