Talk:CD single

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

I would like to say that you have missed out their first album from the chronology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.133.134 (talkcontribs)

I can find no reference on the 'net for "Brothers in Arms" being the first CD single. - Foetusized (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This single from Phil Collins (http://991.com/buy/productinformation.aspx?StockNumber=63767) is from 1982, preceding Brothers in Arms by at leasts 2 years. So Brothers in Arms certainly wasn't the first CD single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.163.112 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It may have released on vinyl in 1982, but 3-inch CD singles were not introduced until 1988, so this wasn't released on 3" CD in 1982. -- Foetusized (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'Song Charts'?[edit]

Is this text true for the UK as well as the USA?

"Due to pressure from record labels, singles charts became song charts, allowing album cuts to chart based only on airplay, without a single ever being released."

I remember the new rules for what could be classed as a "Single" coming in (no more than 3 tracks etc.) but as far as I remember it continued to be the "Singles" chart until a couple of years ago when Download sales were added. 86.164.183.227 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)



Who calls it a Compact Disc single? This is a much simpler title and just about every song infobox on Wikipedia has it linked like this anyway. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Comment you're breaking RMbot with your nonstandard format move requests. Please use one of the substitution section creators. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
OK whatever you say. Unreal7 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 26 February 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)



– The term CD single describe 8cm CD single in Japan and also in documentation, while the text apparently imply (both before and after my latest edit) somewhere in the world people call 12cm CD single as simply CD single. The best course of action in this case I suppose would be leave the CD single page as disambiguation page and then diffierentiate them clearly by their numerical form factor. I also suggest the renaming of mini CD single to 8cn CD single to align with it and to avoid confusion. C933103 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. No-one refers to them as a "12cm" CD single. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the 12 cm CD single is primary topic for the term CD single, and current natural disambiguation is fine for Mini CD single.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Lugnuts: But I just searched about it on google, there's indeed some people who would call it as 12cm Music Single.
    • @Amakuru: The problem is that from my daily experience I never realized the term CD Single can be specifically used to refer to those singles recorded on 12cm CDs. From what I experience, the usual definition for CD Single in my daily life would be either a Music Single released onto a CD (without size indication, despite most of the time being 12cm in the 21st century), or a single being recorded on a CD which have been specifically made to have a size just enough to hold the singl's content, which mean a CD single on 8cm CD, and I've never come across the term Mini CD Single before I read the Wikipedia page. That's why I found the current natural disambiguation method seems ambiguous.
    • C933103 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
      To be honest, C933103, I actually think there may be a case for.merging these two aarticles. Neither one has a huge amount of detail currently, and thr music aspect ofof it is the same. A single section could then talk about the two different sizes. That would solve the disambiguation issue as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Google matches are only a crude indicator, but when they are as dramatically different as these:-
"CD single" - 11,300,000
"Mini CD single" - 111,000
"12cm CD single" - 6,320
"8cm CD single" - 2,310
WP:COMMONNAME gives us no option but to leave it as it is. - Arjayay (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Arjayay: but the problem is that you can't tell how many percent of those "CD single" result are actually referring to those 12cm instead of 8cm release. For instance, I just saw a forum thread which describe CDS as those on 3" CD whereas CDM are for those 5" CD while this article say CDS=CD Single refer to those 5" CD. I understand that forums are not a good reference but you can still observe there's some derivation between the current description within Wikipedia against people's norm.
Also, "3 inch CD Single" get 32600 search result while "5 inch CD Single" get 45900 search result. 3inch/5inch are just same as 8cm/12cm. C933103 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
There will undoubtedly be some overlap in the results, and I don't usually refer to Google matches. However, these figures show a landslide use of the existing terms, and negligible use of the proposed ones. The results for "3 inch CD Single" and "5 inch CD Single" are irrelevant; as these are neither the existing, not proposed titles. You could concede this request and start a new rename request, however, even if you do that, the landslide for this existing use 11,300,000/45,900 (246-1) is so large that, as we are bound by WP:COMMONNAME, I cannot see that succeeding either.
We usually try and avoid two discussions, such as this rename/move and the merge proposal below, occurring at the same time, as it can give confusing, or even un-implementable results. May I suggest you concede this rename/move proposal as WP:SNOW and concentrate on the merge?. - Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
then let's focus on the merge proposal first for now.C933103 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nobody refers to these things by what is being proposed as the new names for the articles.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Mini CD single[edit]

As per Amakuru's suggestion above, and the Technology section as well as technical specification section in the Mini CD single article seems to suit the Mini CD article better. C933103 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think consideration of this merge should wait until the move/rename request above has been determined. - Arjayay (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)