# Talk:Sing (Travis song)

Image:Sing (Travis).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the 2 refs used in the BG section, and the Independent only says Sing was written in 1999 (no mention of "spring"), while the yeoyl.tripod.com one seems to be a fansite(?) that posted transcripts of the band's notes on the song. If this is correct, is there an actual reliable secondary source that specifically mentions "spring of 1999"  that could replace it? Otherwise the wording in the BG section (and the lead) should be changed to just say "...in 1999", as we're supposed to avoid seasonal phrasing for dates anyways. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I had a feeling someone was going to bring WP:SEASON up, and I'll honor that. As for the fansite, I used it because I checked Travis's official site but couldn't find this information anywhere. I even checked several archives but came up empty (hence the "via" param in the ref). I'll run through the archives again and see if I can find it. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait, actually, the site I use isn't loading right now, so I'll check again later. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, Carlobunnie, I had to go back almost 20 years, but I've found the original source. I also managed to procure some information about the development of the music video, so you can expand that section if you want. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I figured so from the "via" but it's gotta be a rel. 2ndary source or no dice, y'know? I was actually going through Wayback archives of the Travis website myself last night to see if I could find the one the fansite was referencing, but hadn't come across anything as yet when I left the above msg, so I'm glad you found it. Re the MV section, idk how strict or not another editor will be when they review the page, since primary sources (and the info they support) can easily be contested (and removed altogether) for various reasons, but if there's any acceptable secondary coverage of it you can in the meantime, that would give you a better leg to stand on. Will take a look in a bit when I'm more awake—woke up not that long ago and only firing on two cylinders rn. --  Carlobunnie (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead section seems a bit long and overly detailed. Granted, it's only three paragraphs, but they are pretty meaty. A lot of minor details do not really belong in the lead. For example, "although retrospective reviews have been more mixed, with British website NME calling it a "characterless mandolin dirge" in 2005." Judging by the well-written Critical Reception section, NME is the only negative review out there and including it in the lead casts a somewhat negative slant. I'd remove this and other details, if the article is to be considered for GA. Any more thoughts? Leoseliv (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leoseliv: Yes, the paragraphs do seem a bit "meaty" now that you point it out. If you could, would you please take a look at this revision and tell me if the information provided in the lead there is satisfactory? It's the edit immediately preceding the expansion. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 19:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@ResolutionsPerMinute: Yes, as far as the lead is concerned, that 'pre-expanded' revision is better and more concise. But even then, I would cut down on some detail, for example in the the last para - the music video. Is that TOTP performance really worth mentioning in the lead? Was it that significant? The bit about the then format precluding live performances definitely has to go - it's sufficient to cover it in the corresponding Music Video section. Don't get me wrong, it's a good article but I think it can be made better for GA and, perhaps, FA nominations. Leoseliv (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Leoseliv: I've tweak the lead accordingly, but I'm going to keep the TOTP bit for now since it was a memorable send-up. If I receive this suggestion a second time, I'll remove it. Thanks for your feedback. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 21:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sing (Travis song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my second review of an article of yours; hopefully it goes well! --K. Peake 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Any specific order in the infobox for the B-sides?
Does the order of the B-sides matter? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be consistent with the track listing section: "Ring Out the Bell", "Killer Queen", "You Don't Know What I'm Like", "Beautiful"? --K. Peake 14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Change release date to 24 April 2001, as the first one is always supposed to be used
Remove hlist per Template:Infobox song, especially with the genre only being one
Alternative covers should have the plural removed because there's only one and place it before the music video template
You should move the lead single part to a separate sentence, making it the third one
"It was written by Travis frontman" → "The song was written by frontman"
"produced by Nigel Godrich, and" → "while produced by Nigel Godrich and"
The third sentence should begin as "The song was released as the album's lead single..." before giving the initial date and the labels, as well as the airplay mention
"the song "Swing" but eventually changed it to "Sing"," → "the melody "Swing" but eventually changed the title for the song,"
"loved one as a form of healing." → "loved one for healing." but the lyrical meaning is not properly sourced in the body
I'm paraphrasing what Healy says in the Comp section: feeling free enough to cut loose and sing in front of someone you love, although the bit about healing may have been too far of a leap. I'll take that out. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh wait, I think I just combined two source to reach a conclusion that wasn't stated by one source. Oops.
The release and airplay info does not belong in the second para
The first sentence of the second para should start as ""String" received acclaim from contemporary music critics, who often praised its"
"It became the band's" → "The song became the band's"
"reaching the top 10 in New Zealand and several countries in Europe," → "reaching the top 10 in several other European countries," adding France after the comma and New Zealand at the end of the sentence for correct order due to the UK being in Europe
"where it rose to" → "peaking at"
"it reached the top 40" → "the song reached the top 40"
Pipe Modern Rock Tracks to Alternative Airplay
Wikilink music video
"the band attending a sophisticated dinner" → "Travis attending a dinner party" with the pipe per MOS:LINK2SECT
The pies being thrown is not sourced, plus it is written that they re enacted the video not made an allusion
I've tweaked the Music Video section accordingly to reflect this; one of the sources mentions the pies but not the video. I think I got too circular with that one. Since this relationship is now severed, should a Live performances section be created for this bit? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you could create a section titled live performances and other usage, mentioning the cover at the end? --K. Peake 14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


### Background and release
"right before he planned" → "the day before he planned" but shouldn't [2] be at the end of this sentence too?
"B-sides for the band's 1999 single" → "B-sides for their 1999 single" with the pipes
Pipe swingbeat to New jack swing
"to write a basic melody" → "to compose a basic melody" per the source, plus you should mention that he did this on guitar
Pipe chorus to Refrain
"to the air," he said on the band's official website." → "to the air", he said on the website." per MOS:QUOTE
Pipe chords to Chord (music)
"asked to put production of "We Are Monkeys" on hold" → "asked for production of "We Are Monkeys" to be put on hold"
"the rest of the band," → "the rest of Travis,"
""swing" to "sing"." → ""swing" to "sing" on the chorus."
"Since Travis lead guitarist" → "Since lead guitarist"
"after recording to demo track," → "after recording the demo,"
"of the word "swing" to "sing", modifying the lyric so that it" → "of "swing" to "sing", modifying the lyrics so that the song"
Remove wikilink on The Invisible Band
"wife, Nora Kryst, in the booklet for The Invisible Band." → "wife Nora Kryst in the album booklet."
"to radio in April 2001" → "to radio during the same month"
Wikilink physical single per MOS:LINK2SECT
It is linked. Do I need to change the target? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You should wikilink to itself instead of the section per the MOS guideline. --K. Peake 14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I hope that's what you wanted. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"It was released in" → "The song was released on CD in" with the pipe
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


### Composition and lyric
Retitle to Composition and lyrics
British colloquialisms aren't exactly my strong point. I swore I saw a user changing "lyrics" to "lyric" on several articles, but then another British user changed them back. This is confusing me, but I'll make the change for now. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink banjo and pipe strings to String instrument on the audio sample text
""Sing" is a" → "Musically, "Sing" is a"
Shouldn't you mention "Piano" from [1], or was that only included during the recording? Also, reception mentions the song includes guitar so you could add this here because it is notable for comp.
I've been searching to the end of planet Earth for the musicians, and it was literally in the only ref that was present before I started editing this article. How embarrassing.
Remove wikilink on London, as it is too obvious
Remove "swelling" because the source does not use the word or anything similar
"consisting of several guitars" → "consisting of strumming guitars" with the wikilink
Are you sure the AllMusic source is referring to this as a love song? Also, the lyrical info here does not properly source what is written in the lead.
I think I used the wrong ref. Billboard calls it a love song. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"referred to as" → "having been referred to as"
Remove pipe on chorus
"repetition of the word "sing"." → "repetition of "sing"." since the lack of capitalisation makes it clear you are referencing the word
"and he explained that" → "and he elaborated that"
"partially inspired the song's lyric," → "partially inspired the word," because we know what word is being referred to
I can't see all of the info for the above sentence since Orlandon Sentinel is not accessible and the archive is broken
Wayback Machine only saves redirects of this source. As I said before, I'm not a technical user, so I'm not sure how to fix this. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Does the ref work in your country or not currently? --K. Peake 08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I can view the ref just fine here in the US. The passage from the source that I'm citing is this: The listener feels the joy in his voice on the banjo-led opener "Sing," a sentimental song about his wife's unwillingness to sing for him. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


### Critical reception
"positively reviewed the song," → "also positively reviewed the song,"
"its lyric as "playful", "silly", and" → "its lyrics as "playful", "silly" and" per British English
Well, I guess what I've seen isn't true then. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"praising its "infectious" hook, and" → "praising the "infectious" hook and"
"and noting how the band and its producer, Nigel Godrich," → "while noting how the band and producer Nigel Godrich"
"of its production" → "of the song's production"
"did not besmirch the band's" → "did not besmirch Travis'"
Remove comma after previous album
"said that the banjo in the song set the track" → "said that the banjo sets the track"
"the lyric was "banal" and the song as a whole was" → "the lyrics are "banal" and the song as a whole is"
"voice was "passionate and expressive"" → "voice sounds "passionately expressive""
"gave the song a scathing review in 2005, labelling it" → "gave "Sing" a scathing review in 2005, labelling the song"
"Pop Rescue wrote that Healy's vocals were a flawless compliment to the instrumentation and" → "the staff of Pop Rescue wrote that Healy's vocals flawlessly compliment the instrumentation and"
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


### Chart performance
Retitle to Commercial performance
"In the United Kingdom, "Sing" debuted at number three, its peak, on" → "In the UK, "Sing" debuted and peaked at number three on"
"It was Travis's fourth top-10" → "It was Travis' 4th top-10" per MOS:NUM on comparative values
"on the country's chart for 14 weeks, the most weeks" → "on the chart for 14 weeks, the longest period"
"and was the band's" → "and was Travis'"
Is there really supposed to be a dash in top 40?
Grammatically, only when it's being used as a compound adjective (top-40 hit; top-20 single). I think it looks better when the numbers are spelled out. In cases where "top [number]" being used as a noun, a hyphen isn't needed. Does this work differently for British English or am I being a little too Grammar Nazi?
From my experience with positions and dashes, I think it is the same just wasn't sure due to top 40 being lower than most. --K. Peake 08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Add (BPI) in brackets
Silver should not include capitalisation
"of over 200,000." → "of over 200,000 units in the country."
"and coming in at" → "and ranking at" to avoid confusion, as the former may sound like its last position on the weekly chart
"number eight on 9 August 2001." → "number eight on 9 August."
"of number two on 29 September 2001." → "of number two the following month." to avoid overly detailed info
"It spent 23 weeks" → "The song spent 23 weeks"
"earning a Gold certification in October 2001" → "as well as earning a gold certification in October of that year"
"it climbed to" → "it charted at"
Pipe Australian Singles Chart to ARIA Charts
Add (RIANZ) in brackets
"In the United States," → "In the US," per MOS:US
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


### Music video
"Top of the Pops on" → "Top of the Pops (TOTP) on" per MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE
Pipe dinner party to Dinner parties per MOS:LINK2SECT
"the band were invited to perform "Sing" on Top of the Pops," → "Travis were invited to perform "Sing" on TOTP,"
"during their live performance." → "during the last 30 seconds of their live performance." but the number three part of this sentence is unsourced
"as Top of the Pops utilised a" → "as TOTP utilised a"
Move the award to the bottom of Synopsis, retitling to Synopsis and reception


#### Development
Pipe girls school to Single-sex education
"and Healy recalled that" → "with Healy recalling that"
The party arrival part is not sourced
Healy's video diary mentions it after he talks about the directors and their families: Later in the day we don some slightly more formal atire and go outside to shoot our arrival at the snobs party.
"took place, and the cast" → "took place and the cast"
"prints were gradually made and" → "prints were made from the takes and"


#### Synopsis
"of food, and the" → "of food and the" on the img text
Sources need to be added for the synopsis at parts since MOS:PLOTSOURCE only allows a lack of sourcing for the summary
This is a problem, since no webs source talk about the synopsis except Travis's website. Which parts need to be edited/cited? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Parts about the summary, e.g. how the video begins, do not need sourcing per the MOS guideline, while lists of differing events do. Try and use the website to source parts like these, otherwise cut this down unfortunately... --K. Peake 08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I've trimmed and cited the synopsis as best as I could. Any comments? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
"garnishing the pies, and" → "garnishing the pies and"
Wikilink tuxedos
This is already linked in the Development section
Remove wikilink on monkey
"watching the band perform" → "watching them perform"
"throwing food, and the situation" → "throwing food and the situation"
Pipe slow-motion to Slow motion
"to see the pandemonium." → "to see the chaos."
"stare at him, and" → "stare at him and"
A minor point regarding the band performing on television. The television set itself cannot be black-and-white as the OSD is clearly shown to be in green (Seen as the monkey increases the volume), so the video itself must be monochrome. Not sure how to best re-word the relevant part though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1260:8400:DEB9:93D:3597:45 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


### Formats and track listings
Wikilink Andy Dunlop
were written by Healy → were written by Fran Healy, with the wikilink
by Payne → by Dougie Payne, with the wikilink
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


### Credits and personnel
Shouldn't you create this section using the liner notes, as there is not only writers/producers but people who played strings too?
Yes, I probably should. Credits are scarce on the liner notes for some reason, so I'll have to search through the notes and refs. Give me a minute. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, it's ready. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a neat addition, but use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel. --K. Peake 08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


### Charts
Good


### Certifications
Sales and certifications for "Sing" → Certifications and sales for "Sing"
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


### Release history
The refs should be centred
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


### Cover versions
This shouldn't be its own section; maybe move the info to background and release or somewhere else?
Wikilink Stephen Thomas Erlewine
Another user added this cover in, and the article was short at the time, so I decided to keep it. Should I just remove it since it doesn't meet WP:COVERSONG? It didn't experience popularity or win any awards. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be removed, plus retitle the last section to Live performance since there's only one after the song has been out for 20 years. --K. Peake 08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


### References
Copyvio score looks incredible at 8.3%!!!
WP:OVERLINK of Travis and Independiente on refs 6 and 60
Musicnotes → MusicNotes.com on ref 12
Remove the author from ref 13 and fix MOS:QWQ issues
Regarding ref 14, it says currently unavailable in my country of the UK... do you have that issue from your nation of residence?
See above. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The middle name should be in the first name parameter for ref 20
Remove the author from ref 48
WP:OVERLINK of NME on ref 49
Author-link Stephen Thomas Erlewine on ref 64 and cite middle name in the first name parameter
See above. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


### External links
YouTube link does not violate copyright; all good!


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed, but reach out if you are confused! --K. Peake 12:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Okay, I've tackled all the sections. Please respond to my questions/concerns where appropriate. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
ResolutionsPerMinute See my responses in relevant areas above! --K. Peake 08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
ResolutionsPerMinute  Pass now, the video synopsis looks fine and I did some copy editing elsewhere for you! --K. Peake 07:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)