Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music samples

message: Hello, does anyone think this guide would benefit from some clarity on the *number* of samples that can or should be used in an article? Or suggestions on how to determine what is appropriate?
I am not sure how to determine the right number. Phrases such as "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles" and "There is no limit to the number of samples that can be used in one article" gave me the impression that editors are free to choose an appropriate number. The page links to Love._Angel._Music._Baby., which uses three audio samples. This also gave me the impression that choosing, say, up to three was normal. However, WP:NFCCP#3 minimal use discourages the use of non-free media. Is the correct number usually zero? How do I tell?
If I look at a Featured music article like Tool_(band), it seems fairly clear that each audio sample can be justified as "significantly contributing". And each seems notable and backed by references. One song was the subject of a large court battle. Two songs won Grammys. One song has critical commentary about the band's signature style. That seems to make sense.
How about the linked album of Love._Angel._Music._Baby.? One is a best selling single. Are more audio samples more appropriate because the article is about an album, rather than a band?
I'm not sure if this is something that comes up regularly, or if I'm just not understanding. Feedback is welcome. --Culix (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of the appropriate use of music samples came up yesterday (see my talk page).  Based on the comments, this guideline needs to be made more clear, especially the contextual significance criterion of WP:FAIRUSE.  The "There is no limit..." explanation and Love.Angel... example don't place enough emphasis on the "accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary" provision as the determining factor.  —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Multimedia - Item 1 might help Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

text: It isn't misleading, it's just a phrase for free samples. Kys5g talk! 05:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm really not sure what is this awful media copyright risk that fair use rationale is meant to be protecting us against. Unless there is clear legal copyright guidance for this, it looks to me like another set of invented rules to satisfy against some illusory threat. I see no difference between illustrating an artist's style by means of a 30-second clip and illustrating a single song by that artist by means of the same 30-second clip. Thanks for asking anyway. Did I mention that some examples of good fair use would be useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if you will get any legal guidance from the WMF, I'm sure that's been asked before with respect to image size (and I've only just got the bulk of the 600,000 images down to the guideline - and some are still arguing about the guideline size!). In my view, it's a bit like a non-free image - it's relatively easy to have one item (often in the infobox). If you need more files on one article, then the subsequent ones should have some commentary in the article about the file, to enumerate on the difference between the main file and the new addition. If it's just half a dozen different clips, then someone will come along and set up a FFD due to failure of minimal usage. I think that "There is no limit..." is misleading. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about images and audio files in the same context can be a bit confusing. But, if I've understood you correctly, that's the fourth different rationale I've seen for including an audio clip in an article. When we say "image size" with regard to audio files, I'm assuming that is to do with quality not length in seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin: There is nothing we can do here to override the non-free use guideline and other controlling policies that have legal implications.  Please take up your concerns on those talk pages. Perhaps Jimi Hendrix (artist article with three song samples) and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album article with three samples) can be added as examples under "Number of samples" in addition to the two song examples under Listen and Audio sample. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the Listen example and added two example articles with multiple samples.  Since this clarifies existing policies and is not "substantive", I'll add this to the guideline page, if there are no objections. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify number of audio samples 

message: As can be seen here: 1, that version is at least 10 years old now, and has been replaced by 2.0 (not 1.3) on 2012-03-14.
Being free, open source software, there is no reason for anyone to be using an outdated version, especially not 6 years after it has been replaced. Per WP:CREEP, the whole "Audacity 1.2" information can be removed, the reference to the non-existant version 1.3 (which was a beta version back then) can be removed, and the sentence can be reworded.
I suggest the following change:
Before: 
New wikitext: 
Then, as a separate (third) bullet point, the following text should be added:
*To do this, you can open the file using Audacity, delete the part that exceeds the maximum length, and export the sample ("File>Export>Export as OGG"). In the Export dialog, move the quality slider to 0 before saving.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone and done this; 1.2 is only getting older and information about it isn't helping anyone.  I did also use an indented bullet point for the audacity-specific information; that seems clearer to me (but I don't think it really matters that much). --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove outdated Audacity v1.2 advice 

message: If you put the word "unlicensed" next to the word "copyrighted" it confuses readers, because everything that's copyrighted is, in fact, licensed by the copyright owner, as evidenced by the "(C)" and "(P)" next to an year.--Fandelasketchup (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: The Guidelines section recommends using . I believe that unless this template is changed its use should not be recommended. The problems I see are:
*The template requires subst-ing, which obscures whether a template was used (and which template) and obscures the parameters. I spent a hour at the Help desk recently troubleshooting where a user had copied and adapted a fair use rationale but did not include a link the use article.
*The template creates an old-fashioned non-free use rationale, which overemphasizes fair use and underemphasizes the requirements of NFCC which go beyond fair use.
 is not tailored for music samples, but it avoids both of these problems. —teb728 t c 10:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music sample info template 

message: Hi, i have a question, the music samples can be a length like a 30 seconds TikTok video? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Araujo (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question