Talk:Wildflower (Superfly song)

Single or album

Okay, so this is marketed as a single, but...it kinda has 19-20 different tracks on it. Should we recategorise this as an album? --Prosperosity (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Superfly and Warner Music Japan both refer to this as a "single". It is Superfly's 10th single. It merely has two bonus disks, one of which has a 15 track cover album on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

They also describe it as a 2CD single+cover album set, and Oricon and the RIAJ class it as an album, however. Wikipedia single articles should be named after the song they are about, and feature information about the song (how it was released, cultural impact, etc). The release, however, is titled "Wildflower & Cover Songs: Complete Best 'Track 3'," implying that the article isn't about a song at all. ---Prosperosity (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We name the article after the release. The release (this single) is "Wildflower & Cover Songs:Complete Best 'TRACK 3'". This is a single with several B-sides, and a "bonus" album. That is how the artist and her record label is treating this. The Oricon and the RIAJ do not dictate what music is released as in Japan. Especially when everyone else is calling this release a maxi single.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please point to where the official site describes the cover album as a bonus album, as I've only seen the 8cm CD described as such. They're marketing the release as a single+cover album set, as shown by the release's price and how their press releases are worded. This is in contrast to, say, "Ring a Ding Dong," (single+8 live tracks) which was released for the price of a standard single and marketed as such. Also, who is this "everyone else"? Do they have such a strong authority in the Japanese music industry as the charting company/certifying company? --Prosperosity (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

They don't. It's just called a single. Yahoo calls it a single. WMG calls it a single. Natalie.mu calls it a single. Superfly calls it a single. The RIAJ and Oricon don't dictate what is and what is not a single.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Ring a Ding Dong" was on one CD. "Wildflower et al." is on 3.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

With "Ring a Ding Dong," how many CDs it has shouldn't matter, since it's technically album length, so the comparison is still valid.

Yahoo indeed calls it a single.

WMG calls it a 2枚組のシングル＆カヴァー・ベスト・アルバム, 2CD single+cover album set.

Natalie calls it a シングル＆カバー集 (single+cover collection) and 通算10枚目となるシングルと洋楽カバー集のセット作品 (a set including her 10th single and a western cover album), not a single.

Superfly Web calls it both a single and a CD2枚組 (note that they don't call it two singles and an album, they call it a CD2枚組+8cm Single).

This doesn't look like all your sources unanimously agreeing that Wildflower & Covers is solely a single. None of them described the cover album as a bonus album, they all described it as being part of the compilation together as a set. I'm not doubting the first CD is Superfly's 10th single, but I don't think we should treat the entire release as a single, as it is not accurate. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wildflower" is a single. It just happens to include a compilation album. That's all the sources are saying.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what the sources were saying? "Wildflower" by itself is indeed a single, but "Wildflower&Covers," i.e. what the article we have is about, is not, it's a single+cover album set. We're not dealing with an article on Wildflower, but on the set release Wildflower&Covers. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just leave the freaking infobox as the "single" one. The Japanese Wikipedia is, and the color of the freaking infobox is not that big of a deal. I've asked for outside input, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What? So instead of having a logical reasoning for doing something, you just tell me to do it? Plus the Japanese Wikipedia's policies are completely different to the English Wikipedias, what happens there can't be cited as a logical reasoning to do something. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have also stated, I am requesting outside input on this matter. Just leave the page be for now, because this is what the source language's Wikipedia is currently doing and what color an infobox is is not a matter of policy on either the English or Japanese Wikipedia. Rather than the two of us arguing over it, I am asking others for their opinion, because it is very likely that neither of us is going to budge because you think it's one way an dI think it's another.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to outside input request: maybe have two infoboxes? One for the single and one for the album? jgpTC 22:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)