Talk:Hidden track

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Albums

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
	An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the `imageneeded` parameter from this template.

Archives

Archive 1

Original research problems

References have been requested for this article for over half a year now, and many of the sections are comprised entirely of original research. Starting tomorrow I will begin removing some of the non-verifiable content. We owe it to our readers to do better than this. (jarbarf) 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it only *said* citation needed in 3 places. You want citations, mark where you want them. I'll note that I found the cite for why the ramones track was removed from the original album in under 5 minutes searching. The other call for cite is over the Catch 22 issue, which also gets mentioned on the Dinosaur Sounds page (it's also not cited there, but it's written better). The article is definitely heavy on the examples rather than discussion, but everything that I've found actually seems verifiable. Please refer to things as 'unverified content', not non-verifiable, if the issue is just that you don't want to go verify it.Thespian 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a version in which all unverified content is marked: [1]. I also reverted myself after adding them, as there are so many that they disrupt the article. Still, you and others can use them as a basis for finding citations for the statements in the article. Also, please understand that the burden of finding citations is in general on the one who wants to keep that particular information.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. But mostly what I do is munch around and cite or remove stuff, and occasionally edit when I find something that is similar in intent/content to what is there, but can be cited; if people who *want* more citations don't mark 'hey, I think that needs more backing,' on the article, I'm not going to notice where they want citations. In point, I don't want to keep *any* particular information in wikipedia, and I think that removing or keeping info based on what people *want* is actually going to screw NPOV (which is why I do a lot of cites for things I don't care about, like hidden tracks and Michael Landon)

Now, that said, what do you want for an citation, when the methods mentions Methods xxxxxx, which does this, and is used on Some Album Name'? Do you want a reference to each one of those types? Very few exist, for things like say, the style of leaving a long silent space in between the last track and the hidden one (as on Dookie or Jagged Little Pill). Reviews will, if anything, just say, 'the hidden track', without mentioning the technical implementation of it. So What exactly is it you think this needs for a citation? It'll wind up with an awfully long cite list that just repeats the article, I suspectThespian 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also just want to note that every time I've followed the link to the album in question, there's been a full thing on the hidden track there. So by most wikipedia standards (links to an article with more information on the album in question), the call for cites (if more are needed) should be being made in those individual articles, and not in this article, which has no need to provide citations for the very existance of the tracks in question. Some of the more speculative stuff certainly needs to be sourced, but it would actually be silly to cite this to the extent you seem to think it merits.Thespian 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree with you. Since the information is present in both articles, the references should be present in both articles. There is nothing wrong with long lists of citations, there are many articles with over 50 references and it is what we should have for more articles. This article has a long section on methods for hidden tracks, so that section should be thoroughly referenced, with proper references. That means that citations should be found that actually describe the methods, not just links to reviews talking about one "hidden track", without explaining the technical implementation. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I checked what you claimed (a "full thing" in many of the albums' articles), for the methods section:

London Calling: No mention that there is a hidden track, only a "a last minute addition", unsourced
Dookie: No "full thing", all that it says is Contains the hidden track "All By Myself" (Tré Cool), unsourced
Songs in the Key of X: Short mention, not more info then here, unsourced
Factory Showroom: Short mention, unsourced
The data track method does not even link to an example album
Not So Tough Now: No "full thing", all that it says is Secret Track, unsourced
Kerosene Hat: Short mention, unsourced
Broken: Short mention, unsourced
Cry Baby Cry: No mention that there is a hidden track, only that the track also includes a very short unrelated song
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: No mention that there is a hidden track

All in all, there appears to be little to no support for many statements here when looking at the full articles for the albums. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Revision Of Sorts

I have just added links directly to a dozen or so songs at Hidden Songs that mention how to find the songs (in ways that line up with the methods, even when they don't directly confirm the method). For the record, I don't actually care about the subject one way or another; I was here because as 'payment' for my use of any entry, I try to clear up one 'citation needed' tag when I use Wikipedia, and it does bother me to see people confusing 'original research' and 'unattributed' (the one is not proof of the other). At this time, I have no real interest in really following up on this; I'll check back later when I find I have nothing else to do. If you're reading this, and thus actually care about the article enough to be reading the talk pages, maybe you could do a cite or two yourself.Thespian 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those links, I suppose that website it the best we have for now with regard to referencing, I agree with that (and will add some references soon). But with regard to the difference between original research and 'unattributed', I again disagree. If someone writes an article about hidden tracks without using any references, but compiling the article from his own knowledge and CD collection, that is original research. The fact that later references can be added that confirm the article make it no less original research. Currently, however, wikipedia no longer considers such an article original research, although technically it still is. If someone writes an article about hidden tracks, using but not attributing external sources, then it is NOT original research. Unfortunately, these two types of articles often cannot be distinguished from each other.

So in summary, although you are right that 'original research' is different from 'unattributed', the reverse is also not true. The fact that something later can be referenced, doesn't mean it was not original research to begin with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting that you have no proof that it was all from someone's own knowledge and cd collection, and considering that I found a number of things mentioned on Hidden Songs there that, while not being word for word the same, expressed the same things indicates to me that it wasn't done properly, but that it wasn't original research - merely a case that it was done for two or three of the first entries and so people assumed that that was what they could follow with. My statement was not that it can't be, but that people seem to be "confusing 'original research' and 'unattributed'". There's been a LOT of people of late wandering around who never seem to contribute anything to the site except to walk around with a big yellow marker adding 'citation needed' (and frequently in places where its completely unneeded). I wouldn't mind it so much if (unlike here), I didn't spend piles of time adding cites that were available in seconds on Google to Wiki articles where people have been threatening to delete things in the :Talk pages. Deleting always weakens an article, and there's been so much of it going on on citations that would have taken less time to find than for the people threatening 'cite this or I'll start deleting!' took, that its really starting to bother me.

Ok. This was an obscure place to get that off my chest. :-) Thespian 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that! It seems highly repetitive to link and date every song on Hiddensongs.com. It would be much better to make one reference (and go ahead and knock yourself out by dating it!) and letting the users search for the individual songs on that site. Therefore I did not link Danzig IV (Danzig4), although I have not deleting remaining links Cuvtixo 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of Cite

This is from the Tool FAQ, Question E11:

E11. Hey, my vinyl copy of "Opiate" doesn't have the hidden song!

This was thought to be some terrible oversight until someone figured this out:

"If you'll notice, the secret song on the Opiate album appears not to be on the Opiate vinyl. I was listening quickly to the vinyl one day, lifting the needle from song to song when suddenly I noticed the secret song ... during Cold & Ugly! It just so happens that the vinyl was specially made so that depending on where the needle falls, you will hear either Cold & Ugly or the secret song ... once the secret song finished, there will be silence until the needle goes back onto the right track .. you will then hear Jerk-Off."

Does that provide a clear enough description of the results of of double-grooving (while it doesn't refer to it as such) for this particular EP? It's not great, as it more describes results, but the results are consistant with the method (which is to say, the album is double grooved, and depending which groove you're in, you'll get a different song, just so you don't need to go find the part of the article I'm referring to) - Thespian 09:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reference sounds fine to me, I've added it to the article. I've also added a couple of book references, found via Google Books. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be fine to you, Reinoutr, but not to Wikipedia, which requires at least two reliable sources for verifiability, not just one. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information about this policy. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning

I'm thinking of either scrapping the Reasoning section or looking for stuff that's more readily cited; I can find things like reviewers saying 'It makes sense that Horse is a hidden track, as it's so different from the rest of the album.' but nothing from the actual band themselves. While the information is no doubt out there, rather than backing this up, it might just be easier to find things like Alanis M's many interviews where she discusses why "Your House" is hidden, etc.

I've just added some more references and removed all that remained unsourced from the reasoning section (for which I could not find references anywhere). The only section that remains to be sourced is the "titles" section. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There Are A Lot of Hidden Songs

The songs that are in the article are there because they show an example of a certain method of hiding, or because they bring something to the table about why they are hidden, etc. If you have a favourite hidden song you want to list, please do it in the List of albums containing a hidden track. Songs added to this article should have a specific reason they're being added (new method, interesting reason for being hidden, new way of being marketed or coming to light, etc). Also, if you have a *better* citation of one of the samples (some of the ones we have are weak), or if you have specific links to articles in which artists discuss their hidden tracks, that'd be great. - Thespian 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that was what I wanted to say here right now :) I remove the ones that simply duplicate the content of the list without additional info. – Alensha ^talk 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles

For example, "Her Majesty," which is preceded by fourteen seconds of silence, was originally unlisted on The Beatles' Abbey Road"

...

The Beatles's "Her Majesty" from Abbey Road. ...It begins after eleven seconds of silence following "The End".

REALLY?!?!?!

*head explodes*

In the article says that the hidden "noise" after A Day In The Life would be the first hidden track, as it was released two years prior to Abbey Road. However, in the White Album (one year prior to Abbey Road) also appears a hidden track, after the song "Cry Baby Cry". The hidden song is unnamed, although is known as "Can You Take Me Back". Should it be put on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.43.43 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page maintenance needed

I've spotted two errors on this page, but as I don't know the albums in question someone else will have to fix them.

Notability: 'Pearl Jam's song "4/20/02," [...] begins exactly 4:20:02 after the conclusion of the song "Bee Girl." ' 4 hours, 20 minutes and 2 seconds?!?! Given that the maximum running time of a pressed CD is only about a quarter of this, it seems rather unlikely; perhaps it should read 4:20.02 (4 minutes, 20 seconds and 20 milliseconds).

References: number 14 reads "# ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kerosene_hat". What it says, presumably, or some other error with the wikicode source.

217.171.129.71 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.71 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MP3s

I'm assuming hidden tracks can't be accessed when albums have been converted into MP3 form. If so, I think this should be mentioned. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When converting, a hidden track usually forms one mp3 file with the preceding track, they have to be cut into two files. – Alensha ^talk 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should you even have an MP3

Methods of hiding tracks

There should really be a section on different methods of hiding tracks on different mediums e.g. CDs and records. It seems silly to have to read through a list of "notable" hidden tracks to find some of the methods used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.157.100 (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section was there, but it was vandalised away ages ago. I've just reinstated it. -- Smjg (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Is there any notable criticism about them? I know I find them annoying but is there anything documented? Sweetie candykim (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick google search, couldn't find much that wasn't people on forums. This might be notable, but it might not (it's on guardian.co.uk, which is generally considered reliable, but it's a blog, so is it still reliable? I don't know). I also found this, but again, not sure on its notability/reliability. Anyone have a comment on the notability of these sources, or able to find other sources? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Vinyl release of London Calling by The Clash did have a sticker on it calling "Train in Vain" a secret hidden track. Nantucketnoon (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hidden track. 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:

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) 01:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hidden track. 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/20090221070346/http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=299 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=299

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) 12:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]