User talk:Saw141

February 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fade into You. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''This is not how it works. See Template:Infobox song. I know you've been to other song articles, so you should at least have a clue.'' ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 10:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * You're not an admin, you're just another contributor that disagrees on the semantics of whether or not the Song is a "single". I made a contribution and voiced my opinion as to why I felt the change should be made and what further changes should probably be made, this is not "disruptive"; it's no more "disruptive" than you forcefully reverting my changes. You could have in your edits, directed me to the talk page, or made your own discussion topic since you're clearly so upset by my completely valid changes. Instead you've come to my individual talk page and are threatening me with ridiculous threats, even though I literally did nothing wrong. We're arguing over semantics. I think the article conveys more information about the song as a "song" and that the language of the infobox should reflect that.
 * As I said in my second edit reasoning, the Infobox alludes to the Single release, but the rest of the article, the majority of the content regarding the Song, doesn't. Even the Template page doesn't give a clear guideline between distinguishing a "song" and "release", although what it does say supports my claim. "If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, "Stairway to Heaven" was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but became best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album." The single release is not the most well known version, the album version is. If you search "mazzy star fade into you" you will find more reference to the album than the singles. The Youtube version uses the album art, the Youtube video says the song is from the album, the Spotify version uses the album art. Google itself summarizes the song as a song, released in 1993, on So Tonight That I Might See. Perhaps there should be two articles in this case, one specifically referencing the single release. It's factually incorrect to say that the song was released in April 1994, even if the first "official single release" was. This conveys incorrect information about the song. I think the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate information. Saw141 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Semantics or not, it was still released as a single. Therefore, it gets a "single" infobox, and the "single" date is used, because that's when the "single" was released, whether it be a radio date or a physical format. Songs from the 60s and 70s might not work like that, but we are not talking about Led Zeppelin. We are talking about the 90s, when single releases were much more defined. Would you change the release date of "Gone Too Soon" simply because it first appeared on an album released two years prior? I should also point out that you're adding an uncited date to Fade into You, which is against policy no matter what beliefs you may have. October 5 is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and it's also uncited on the parent album's article, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Also, Google searching and citing YouTube is weak research. How do you know this information didn't come off the back of a cereal box? Technology is full of bugs and lies. You gotta dig deeper than that. ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 01:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)