Talk:Alan Walker discography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discographies

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography

Norway Mid‑importance

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Song title change

@Hayman30: So it's expected that a different source be cited that displays the title change? Alrighty. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing is, iTunes states that Alan Walker is a featuring artist over here, which I would arguably describe as a more reliable source then the YouTube ref provided earlier by that IP. Other media outlets too state that Walker is featured in the track, as shown here. The source might be unreliable though. aNode (discuss) 05:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this. All sources are saying that Alan Walker is featured Ignite expect YouTube. We should wait until for the reliable source. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

NO

There is weak consensus not to remove the "Published remixes" section from the article. A slight majority of editors believe that Alan Walker's verified accounts on music and video sharing platforms, including SoundCloud and YouTube, are considered official release platforms for music distribution. — Newslinger talk 23:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Published remixes" section in the article be removed? Flooded with them hundreds 18:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Yes

Yes, per my points in the discussion below that the section consists of unreleased remixes by Walker. Unreleased because they were merely uploaded to his YouTube channel with no proper distribution and they aren't even remixes because a remix is a piece of music made with permission from the original artist but there isn't any evidence to prove the listed remixes are made in that manner. Flooded with them hundreds 18:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm surprised to see that this is controversial. It seems obvious to me that just because an artist is notable, every single thing they self-release on social media sites, video hosting sites, soundcloud, etc. would be listed on Wikipedia. Is there really no style guide that already addresses this? [summoned by bot] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No

The remixes in question are officially released by Walker via his YouTube channel and/or SoundCloud. Music distribution includes digital consumption, and is not limited to physical copies. WP:DISCOGSTYLE states that bootlegs officially released by the artist can be added, there is no mention that the remixer must seek permission from the original artist. Hayman30 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not an easy choice, but my two cents on this: If a "remix" (sometimes the artist might call it a bootleg) is published by a specific artist in mind, albeit released through a label or self-published on Youtube, it should be treated as an official remix. Of course, obvious bootlegs of unreleased remixes/songs such as this which were revamped and released by fans shouldn't be accepted. But something like this who's released through the artist's Soundcloud and valided through Youtube links should generally be accepted. aNode (discuss) 15:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it is valid content as YouTube and SoundCloud count as major release platforms these days, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Hayman30: A remix is released or given permission for release by the original artist or their label not the remixer. These self-published remixes by Walker are very likely bootlegs because they were made using his bedroom alias "DJ Walkzz" years before achieving mainstream success. No reliable sources exist for them, hence they are not appropriate for inclusion.[1]

A remix is released or given permission for release by the original artist or their label not the remixer. You are talking about official remixes, which are remixes officially released by the original artist or their label. These are self-published remixes. No contradiction here. These self-published remixes by Walker are very likely bootlegs because they were made using his bedroom alias 'DJ Walkzz' years before achieving mainstream success. Pure assumption, and their being released under DJ Walkzz doesn't change anything. They are all sourced from Walker's official YouTube channel. A bootleg recording, according to Wikipedia's own definition, is a recording that was not officially released by the artist. These remixes are indeed released by Walker himself. Also don't use my username as the headline. Hayman30 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published music is unofficially released unless made available with distribution. The remixes listed here are not made available anywhere but on YouTube. DJ Walkzz is a non-notable alias of Walker and you once argued against including the work of Dotcom (DJ) in Marshmello's discography because it's the latter's non-notable project so I don't see how that logic wouldn't apply here and why you would argue against removing Walkzz's work when both works are equally non-notable. A remix is an official release by the original artist or sometimes by the remixer with permission (there is no such thing as officially self-published remixes), a bootleg is an unofficial recording published by the remixer but unapproved by the original artist and per the Wikipedia definition, these remixes qualify as bootlegs. Flooded with them hundreds 13:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published music is unofficially released unless made available with distribution. According to who? What you're saying is if Walker uploads a song to SoundCloud it's "unofficially released" as well, which makes no sense. Anything released by the artist himself is official, it doesn't have to be released under a label or made available for purchase and streaming. You don't need to dig through my comments and find flaws to back up your argument. When I said he isn't notable under Dotcom, I was saying that I'm against the idea of making a separate page and discography for Dotcom, I didn't really read what he wrote at the end. A remix is an official release by the original artist or sometimes by the remixer with permission. No. Again, this is an opinion not a fact. I can remix somebody's song and put it on SoundCloud and call it a remix, you don't need permission from the original artist or label. Yes, they are not official remixes, but they are still remixes, and are released by Walker himself. Remixes are not bootlegs. Hayman30 (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? - Music release: "In the music industry, a release usually is a creative output from an artist, available for sale or distribution". If Walker uploads a song to SoundCloud it's "unofficially released" - exactly that. Again, this is an opinion not a fact - no it's not just my opinion. Remix - The important characteristic (of a remix) is that the remixer was asked or authorized to do the remix.[2] Bootleg - Most remixes you have heard, downloaded, or made are bootlegs—that is, using audio layers of any song without express approval from the artist.[3] Flooded with them hundreds 16:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube and SoundCloud are mediums of distribution. These remixes do not necessarily have to be made available for purchase on digital retailers for God's sake. Even the opinion piece you cited mentioned "official" and "unofficial" remixes, implying that both are remixes. Note that WP:DISCOGSTYLE states that officially-released "bootlegs", as you like to call it, can be included, and the "official" here refers to the primary artist, not the remix artist, so I don't even know what you're arguing about. For example, Walker's remix of "Hymn for the Weekend" shouldn't appear on Coldplay's discography, but it can be added on Walker's own discography. Go for your beloved RfC if you still think this is disputed. Hayman30 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. Distribution is the way that recorded music gets into the hands of consumers[4]. Consumers, as in, people who purchase goods and services for personal use.[5] YouTube and SoundCloud are streaming platforms that do not distribute music to consumers by definition. Distribution in this context is referring to the business term and not generically. Flooded with them hundreds 17:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are. Distribution includes digital consumption. It is impossible for recorded music to actually get into the hands of consumers aside from CD and vinyls and such so iterally what you're saying is every song in history that wasn't released on CD and was only available for streaming and digital download doesn't count as an official release. Stop citing these random articles as if they must be right, you're just using them because they fit your argument. I'm tired of this back and forth just go for a RfC. Hayman30 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New vid "Space Melody"

Not sure how to add this correctly sourced, but a new video came out 18 December for "Space Melody" which is stated to be official by Walker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXzestWGq2U ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]