Template talk:Infobox single/Archive 5

Based in infobox
I have converted this template to be based in the infobox metatemplate. See the sandbox and the testcases. All parameters seems to be working and there are no layout changes... except those whitespaces between label and data parameters, currently there is no way to change that behavior since infobox hardcodes cellpadding="5" in its code. Thoughts? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this what Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk already did a few months ago (see this discussion)? What's different from what he already did? Do you mind explaining the benefits of the proposed change to people like me who are not experts in template implementation? Have you planned to apply the same changes to this templates "twin brother", Infobox album, to preserve consistency? I ask these questions in order to prevent you from stirring up too much dust :-). Thanks in advance. –IbLeo (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The template sandbox now uses the infobox metatemplate, Chris just reworked the infobox to have a standardized style with other infoboxes. This will take that "standarization" deeper. Benefits? Easier to code and easier to maintain. It wouldn't be much trouble to do this with Infobox album too. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A good move. Thank you. It's best to stick to 's default styling, to maintain consistency across the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to convert Infobox album too and any other related template. After that, should we implement the sandbox version? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't have any problem with implementing this change on both templates, provided it is properly tested in the sandboxes first (see below for a problem report). And I think you should also bring it up on Infobox album's talk page to get further input. WP:ALBUM is a very active project. – IbLeo (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Extra track listing
I expanded the Template:Infobox single/testcases page to include two variations using Extra track listing. They demonstrate a problem where the sandbox version evidently generates bad markup. I didn't try too hard to debug it as I am not familiar with the base infobox template. It looks like infobox just pushes out whatever is passed in Misc=, so perhaps Extra track listing has a dependency on how the non-sandbox version is implemented. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is fixed now. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request
editprotected Please, sync with sandbox. Per above. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Writer field
There is no description on the docs for what should go in the writer field. It seems obvious that the writer field should capture the official songwriter, i.e., the person or persons who appear on the label or in the ASCAP / BMI databases, etc. In some cases, the actual writer varies from the official writer. So, for example, McCartney wrote "Hey Jude" but it's credit to Lennon/McCartney. Another editor and I are having a difference of opinion about what to put in the infobox. I think infoboxes are intended to include non-controversial summary information supported by authoritative sources, and so I favor the official credit, L/M. He says the information that says McCartney wrote is well-sourced and so we should put McCartney there.

I'd like to see this clarified and the docs updated. What say you? &mdash; John Cardinal (talk)
 * The field should not list who recieves "official" credit; it should list who wrote it, as verified by reliable sources. Doing otherwise would misrepresent the sources. On Wikipedia we are interested in documenting what can be verified. For comparison, I point to the film infobox, with lists all people involved in writing the story or screenplay, regardless if they received "official" credit for it, as verified by sources. For some Beatles songs it's uncertain whether or not Lennon or McCartney wrote the song completely independent of the other and I can understand keeping it ambiguous in those cases, but in some cases (like "Hey Jude", "Yesterday", and Lennon's solo single "Give Peace a Chance") it's verified by a number of sources that only one of them actually wrote it. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * i agree that this needs clarifying; listing only one writer for tracks that are officially credited to two songwriters is potentially misleading, no matter what other sources confirm. maybe "credited to L/M, composed by X" would work (with the  details and sources in the body of the article, of course); if that's too unwieldy, i'd use the official credits in the infobox. Sssoul (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "credited to L/M, composed by X" is similar to what the film infoboxes use for writer credits. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "as verified by reliable sources". There are verifiable sources for the official/formal/legal credits, and in most cases, they are more reliable than interviews, biographies, etc. If a writer had reliable evidence to support a change to the formal credit, or agreement from the other parties involved, the legal credit would be changed. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is a publishing credit more reliable than comments by the songwriters printeed in reliable books or magazines? They aren't, because the publishing credits themselves are primary sources, while the books and magazine articles that produce the comments have editorial oversight. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Editorial oversight only ensures that the person said what is quoted or described. That's not at issue. The issue is whether or not the person had evidence to support the claim. I can say I wrote "Hey Jude" into a reporter's tape recorder, the reporter can put that in a newspaper story, and the fact-checking department and editor can approve it. It's accurate: I said it. It's obviously more credible when McCartney says it, but that doesn't mean he has evidence. He'd need evidence to change the legal credit, and given he has not, he either doesn't have such evidence or doesn't want to change the credit. Either of those causes argues for leaving the credits as L/M. Lennon (especially) and McCartney said a lot of things in interviews that weren't completely accurate. Even when they were, when there are contractual and/or legal implications, more evidence is required. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Format field
So what is expected to go into the format field? It seems obvious whether it was released on a 7" vinyl, cassette single, or CD single, etc., but since we're in the age of digital downloads, people are entering "Digital download" as a format, which seems to me more of a means of acquiring a song, not the actual format. "MP3" would be generally correct since that is the primary format of music downloads, especially with many retailers dropping DRM, but that is not an exclusive format for digital music files. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, technically "compact disc" is a means of acquiring a song, which is really the bitstream of 1s and 0s located on said disc. "Format" here really means "physical form that the purchase takes", so "digital download" is really the best answer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology
Infobox Album has a field for "Chronology" which, if used, overwrites the automatic placement of the "Artist" value in the chronology banner. Could we add this feature to this infobox? It would be useful for articles about split singles, used in conjunction with Extra chronology 2 to produce 2 separate chronologies for the 2 different artists on the split. I have provided a demonstration to the right of how this looks when used with the album box, using Present Day Memories as the example with the following values:



I believe this same feature could be adapted to this infobox to benefit articles about split singles. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on further experimentation, it seems this feature is already included (I tested it on Blue Meanies / Alkaline Trio and it worked), but it's not listed in the documentation. Would someone mind adding it so editors can see that we have it and how to utilize it? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a description. I am sure it could be improved, but it's a start. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox edits
Hey folks,

I've made some significant updates to the sandbox to better match other modern infoboxes and to fix some MoS / accessibility issues (such as line breaks in table cells). Comparison between old and new is on the test cases page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good, though I personally prefer the old-style small text in the chronology section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it too. Having smaller fonts makes the infobox take up less space when there is lots of text in there which is a good thing. Two questions however: (1) Is the small whitespace between the yellow background of "Single by Blur" and "from the album The Great Escape" deliberate? (2) I agree with Huntster regarding the chronology section; furthermore is there really any extra value in bolding the "current" field? I know we used to have that about one year ago in the Album infobox but it somehow disappeared so I guess there must have been consensus to let it go. – IbLeo (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The gap between the artist and album isn't "deliberate" so much as an artefact of using separate table rows for the fields rather than a line break (as is required for accessibility reasons). The chronology font size issue is a minor one, but I'd rather we didn't use small text if it wasn't truly necessary, and the difference here is only a point or two. As for the bolding, I think it helps to make it clear that it refers to the current article, but again I'm not fussed if it goes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I actually liked the "current" field being bold, so I don't mind getting it back. I just wanted to point out that it may upset someone. I won't make an issue out of the font size either. Regarding the gap, what do you mean with "accessibility reasons"? – IbLeo (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility. While there is no great potential for confusion here as there is with multiple data points in matching rows, we should still be trying to avoid using line breaks in rows as a matter of good practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm... it's a tad too technical for me. I'll take your word that it's the right thing to do. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Update
So does anyone have any further input? As the actual layout changes are fairly minimal (mostly font sizing tweaks), I think we can go ahead with sync with the sandbox if there's no opposition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't hold you back. Just wonder if you thought about applying the same changes to Infobox Album? They are sort of cousins, and I would think that they should be equivalent in style. – IbLeo (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes; I'll try to roll out equivalent changes over all of the associated infobox templates as I come across them. Infobox Album is the next stop. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Thanks. – IbLeo (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. Requesting sync with the sandbox as there has been no further discussion. Further updates can proceed on the updated codebase. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dis font too small to read. Dan56 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, this new font looks too small. Personally, I think the single infobox font should be reverted, and the album infobox font should remain the same. Blackjays1 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looked odd at first, but I think I just have to get used to it. Anything that focuses more on the prose of the article is a good thing, though. However, it appears if there is an extra chronology or cover (maybe whenever the "Misc" field is used), the header for the extra bit is not centered. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a test case or example article which demonstrates this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect Wolfer68 refers to the centering issue that can be seen on the 2nd misc section in both infoboxes over at Under Pressure. – IbLeo (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem was the sub-templates Extra chronology 2 and Extra album cover 2. I've fixed the first and put in an editprotected for the second. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The same issue also appears with Extra track listing - see for example Space Oddity. – IbLeo (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and thanks. But take another look at the first infobox at Under Pressure and compare the two singles chronologies (Queen and David Bowie): (a) "This single" is bolded in the former but not in the latter. (b) As far as I can see the text style is different between the two. – IbLeo (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first instance was manually bolded in the page; nothing to do with the template. I've de-bolded it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The font size is much too small now. Even with my fairly good eyes, it is hard to read. Why should the font size in the infobox be smaller than the rest of the text? It seems like this update was hastily incorporated, as there are some areas in the infobox where the font size was not changed. Tim meh  ! ( review me ) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be a discussion/survey regarding this matter. Blackjays1 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The font size is exactly the same as the default setting on infobox, as deployed across the majority of the encyclopedia at this point. It is exactly the same font size as in infobox musical artist in most cases. And the font size is not overridden anywhere else in the template: some sub-templates may be overriding it, which they shouldn't be. If you can point out any example articles they can be fixed quickly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The font seems smaller than the other infoboxes for some reason. Maybe it's just me though. And yes, the singles in the chronology section of the infobox should probably be a smaller font size to keep consistency with the rest of the template. Check out Re-Education (Through Labor) for an example. They seem really out-of-proportion to me. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've found the difference in size between the two infoboxes. This is Infobox single: style="width: 22em; text-align: left; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em" This is Infobox Musical artist: style="width:23em; font-size:0.9em; line-height:1.4em; The font size, width, and line height are different. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 0.9em is functionally the same size as 88% on most modern Web browsers. The line height and template width are orthonormal to the font sizing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing it up. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 14:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The centering doesn't seem to be fully resolved as seen in the chronology section of Respiration (song). Maybe because it is using "Extra chronology" as opposed to "Extra chronology 2"? --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the problem. I changed the article to use Extra chronology 2, as Extra chronology is deprecated. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to add a third extra album cover? Csae2206 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Chronology font size
I've made the font size a bit smaller, as it seemed abnormally large compared to the rest of the infobox text. If everyone could check out the testcases page and let me know if it looks any better, it'd be great. Thanks. Tim meh  ! ( review me ) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite good, as it reflects how the chronology section originally looked like. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to this change either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Since nobody disagrees with the change, would an admin please incorporate the sandbox version? Tim  meh  00:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Update
There's current discussion here about this font size change, and I think it'd be better to remove the override. I've updated the sandbox to remove it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I removed the 'font-size: 88%' from the chronology section. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Italics and "CD single"
From the discussions on WP Albums talk it seems that people agree that if the Greek media wants to call a borderline EP a CD single then we have to comply to not be committing OR. Therefore I propose that we add a field that will italicize the name of the CD single to override the automatic quote adding since many of these CD single names are not songs, such as Remixes 2004, etc. Additionally there needs to be a type that shows as "CD single" instead of "single" and links to "compact disc single" instead of "single (music)" since the CD single is not a song/single, but rather the disc itself. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added editprotected for you, so this can get dealt with. I suppose that a field should be added, so if something like   then the punctuation surrounding the song titles (both at the top and in the chronology) would be changed to   instead of the default  . &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific. Can you put the proposed code in the template sandbox and then gain consensus. I might suggest not using a parameter specific to one particular country as it possible that the media in other countries might follow suit in future? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make sense to me. If the article is about the song, it should use Infobox single and the name should be in quotes. If the article is about a package of songs, it should use Infobox album and the name should be italicized. If the article is primarily about the song but also describes the package of songs—possibly because the package is not worthy of a separate article—then follow the primary topic and use . There's no need for a country-specific parameter, and furthermore, making do the work of  is not a good idea. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)OK, with the sandbox, here is the diff that needs to be made. There has already been much discussion here and here. As for the extra "type" for what "Single" links to, I don't think the infobox needs to link to Compact Disc single, because that seems too specific. If anything, single (music) needs to be improved to include mentions of maxi singles, as well as info on singles outside the US and UK. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to John Cardinal, there are cases where some release (e.g. Remixes 2004) is commonly known as a single, even though it would probably be considered an EP in the US or UK. Even though it is a single, the title is not the name of a song, so it needs to be italicized.  However (based on the consensus developed in the discussions I linked to just above), to classify it as an EP is essentially conduction OR.  It is easier just to call it a single, but italicize the name.  It makes more sense to add an option to Infobox single than add a singles style to Infobox album. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's either a single or it's not. Using and then italicizing the name is a weird in-between. Decide what it is, and then use the proper template. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, because I just found out that the album infobox has the option to set  already.  I don't know why that never got brought up in all the discussion at WT:ALBUMS. So never mind making this change, I guess. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not arguing the point to make your life difficult, I am arguing because my opinion is different from yours. If you use infobox album, and set single, you'll produce another hybrid result. I think that's better than changing, but it's not the right outcome. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to make the infobox still show yellow instead of the default "missing type" pink? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * John, that argument for type in the albums infobox is what I just figured out. I know you weren't trying to be difficult, I just didn't want to elaborate on my opinion when it turned out it was moot.  Sorry if I sounded rude.  Grk1011, I posted over at Template talk:Infobox album about the color issue. The single argument seems broken. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to be "CD single". That is what makes it different. In Greece, a single is a song, a CD single is the CD with 4-5 songs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like in Greece "CD single" is a synonym for "EP". If it is a collection of songs with a title that isn't the same as the main song on the collection, then it's not a single according to the WP practice. If you can't call it "EP" or "album", then you should lobby for a new type to be added to Infobox album. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Infox Release dates
Say that in the albums infobox at the bottom it has the releases of the singles. What do i put as it's date, its airplay or its physical/digital release? Billy4kate, (talk) January 11, 2009 12:51 pm Australian Time.
 * I usually put the first commercial release date whether its airplay, CD single, digital or whatever. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Airplay" or Radio "Add dates" are not 'commercial release dates' but 'promotion release dates'. Commercial release date should mean making money from the release as in the general public being able to purchase it. Please discuss the 'promotion release dates' in the Promotion section and/or article Lead and ONLY list 'commercial release dates' [availabilty for purchase] in the infobox release date and the Release date section. —Iknow23 (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

B-side(s)
since alot of singles have more that one B-side, can someone change it to say B-Side(s)?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Single Release date (Invitation to discussion)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the Single Release date to be shown in the infobox and the article's 'Release date' section. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. For completeness of discussion PLEASE post all comments there. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Single articles with infobox field chart position
Guess what massive maintenance category is finally gone? Thanks to Shirik for the help. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's good that it's gone, but did you move the information elsewhere in the article when you removed the hidden/deprecated parameter? — John Cardinal (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In almost all cases it was already in the article text anyway. In cases where it wasn't, I added it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he did not. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, looks like I forgot in a couple instances. Easy enough to fix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that when I came to WP almost 2 years ago, the "chart position" field, although validated in the wikitext, did not show in the article itself. I guess it had been depreciated at some point. Then, last summer when the infobox was standardised it suddenly began to pop up again in the articles. It's good that the field has now been removed from the templates, but I think we should delete the underlying source code in the template code so the field is no longer supported, even if an editor puts it back into wikitext. WDYT? – Ib Leo (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I finally got around to looking at more of these edits where the chart position field was removed by Users:TenPoundHammer and Shirik on February 20, and in none of them was the chart info added to the article if it wasn't already there. I had diligently gone through over a thousand of the articles, adding it in where appropriate. I had got it down to about 700 articles when they took over. Since I was doing it anyway, I will try to follow their edits so I can incorporate the chart info into the article. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

TfD
Please place on this template, pointing to Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 10. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys might want to add a line break after the "This tablet is being considered for merging" blurb. It really throws the symmetry off when the title of the song and the box with that text in it are run straight together, usually over several lines. Specifically, line 5:

| above     = ""

should be changed to

| above     =  ""

This will enhance readability and make things prettier. --Khantia (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks terrible! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you realize how widely-used this inbobox is? This "merging" text is appearing at the top of every article that uses it.  Please reconsider this edit request, or hide it somehow, as in the current format it looks ridiculous and unprofessional. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with above two users; it looks dreadful. See for example Under Pressure. Reading Templates for discussion and the documentation for Tfd I believe that either type=sidebar or (if this does not work) type=disabled should be added. I am reactivating the edit request for an admin to have another look at this. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've used disabled as suggested. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think by doing this you've disabled singles. Unless its just me, it seems to have disappeared from lots of articles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, do you have an example of a broken one? i just looked at Smells Like Teen Spirit, which uses the singles infobox, and it looks fine. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why would a single infobox use singles??? Example? – Ib Leo (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this was due to an error I made on another template, which has since been reverted. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * well take a look at Animal (Kesha album) it is unecessarily showing italics, as it Kelly Rowland (album). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to point out that those two articles use Infobox album, which indeed had a problem with inclusion of the Singles template. It is fixed now. Still, I don't see the relation to this template. – Ib Leo (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW it was a mistake to remove the "merge" message as now people won't be aware that there is an open discussion about the future of the template. Removing or changing standard practise for simple appearance reasons is not a good enough reason to remove the message. You've sacrificed functionality for appearance. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually recommended type=sidebar as a first choice solution, but Martin went directly for the second choice, type=disabled, for a reason unknown to me. – Ib Leo (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to risk messing up articles again. The discussion is well attended and therefore I don't think it is not necessary to lower the standards of our reader-facing articles with an internal matter. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove TfD template
Single/Song merge discussions closed as no consensus. Remove notice pls? :) Tarc (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, all without screwing things up. —  ξ xplicit  02:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Featuring artist(s)
They mess up the singles chronology when they are also put in the 'artist' parameter, like Radio Song and Valley Girl (song) for example. So does a new parameter need to be made for them or should they be dropped from infoboxes altogether?  VEO one five 15:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * note the chronologies should always appear seperate. e.g. Commander (song) --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AGREED with Lil-unique1. Also note that the word 'singles' is removed from the featured artist chrono as it is NOT 'their single'. They are a part of it however, thus a part of their chrono, just not their 'singles' chrono. I hope that's not too confusing.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto above. Status quo is good. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion concerning musical infoboxes
Please see the discussion here. J04n(talk page) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxen Song + Single: merge redux
I'd again like to propose the merger of Infobox song and Infobox single (see past discussion). The templates are often used interchangeably, and this is long overdue. I've arbitrarily selected this as the venue for centralised discussion. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree but would like to see Infobox song as the default template with a Single = Yes/No parameter. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree and agree that song should be the default name/template, since all singles are songs, but not all songs are singles. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: At this point I am undecided about this proposal. Mainly because in my book a song and a single are two entirely different things. A song is a composition (lyrics + music, no relation to an artist) while a single is a release of a specific recording by a specific artist of a particular song. At a first glance I find it illogical to put two different things in the same infobox. Especially I am curious to see how you are going to handle the following two quite common use cases:
 * The song is first recorded by one artist (typically the author) but not released as single. Then, some years later, it becomes a single hit for another artist. Example: "Mr. Tambourine Man".
 * The same song is released as a notable single by several different artists. Example: "True Colors".
 * So before making my mind up I would like to see a concrete proposal of a merged infobox. – Ib Leo (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your numbered questions are good ones; but whatever the answers, the status quo is not a viable option. Did you read the prior discussion? I'd also suggest looking at random selection of song/ single infoboxes to understand the current confusion between the two infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I deliberately didn't say "oppose" as I want to keep an open mind on this. And I agree with you that the current situation is not ideal, with people confusingly using those two infoboxes. So at this point please just note my questions; you might very well come up with a solution to them that I haven't thought of myself, to everyone's satisfaction. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a further confusion over this. It appears that every album track is released indvidually (with the exception of Pink Floyd) and is treated as a single for chart purposes. This is a change from the pre-digital era when a single had a specific physical difference. I am not sure how this proposal affects this. Nor am I sure how it affects songs/singles from the 40s and 50s when songs were released for artists to cover.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pink Floyd may be the most notable exception but they are not the only exception. It's not that songs are treated as singles for chart purposes, it's that the charts are song charts now not singles charts. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'songs' now can chart without being released as 'singles'. The charts still use their historical name as a 'singles' chart though to differentiate it from album charts.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of Billboard charts, the terms "tracks" and "songs" are used for their charts.
 * Fair enough, so what is the difference, is there a difference now? --Richhoncho (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is only available as an Album track (song) it will have the EXACT same release date as the album. If it is ALSO available for purchase as a 'single', the 'single' release date will be different from the album, could be before or after it.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it not possible to create an example infobox with the Single y/n parametre? that would make this conversation a lot easier to visualise. Also is it a good idea for example Speechless (Lady Gaga song) is notable enough for its own article. If this motion passes are we saying that effectively there will just be one general infobox for singles/songs? The infoboxes in my examples of Speechless (Lady Gaga Song) and Telephone (song) should be different as the purpose of each article is different. One is clearly about a song that was only notable as an album track whilst the other was released commercially.Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see one infobox for singles and songs. If set up like the album infobox, a color scheme can be developed so when "single" is entered in the "Type" field, the infobox color will still be yellow for singles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this idea too, seeing as how a "Song" and a "Single" really are two different things. "Spatula City" by "Weird Al" Yankovic is a song... "Welcome to the Jungle" by GnR is a single.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the first line of that article says ""Welcome to the Jungle" is a song". The duality is the problem we need to resolve, here. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How can we take this forward? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, like in the past discussion I don't see any clear consensus for a change. Do you? – Ib Leo (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes; though we have yet to agree the optimal solution. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment (with apologies in advance if it's off the mark, since I'm not able to devote time to reading the past discussion right now): I came here thinking the idea sounded sensible, envisaging that what I found would lead me to support, with the rider others have provided (that Song should be the one to end up with). Having only skimmed the above comments, I'm now inclined to think Mr Tambourine Man makes the point: the article is a Song article, so it has a Song infobox; additionally, the song has been recorded and released on one or more singles, so it also has a Single infobox for each. That seems to me to be exactly how it should be (at least from the point of view of the data/information structure). I suppose theoretically there could exist a Song infobox configurable to contain one or more Single "sub-boxes", but failing that, it seems it's probably best as it is. PL290 (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work where a song is subsequently covered by the non-original artist, but most singles have a 1-1 relationship with an artist. Your sub-box idea is a possibility Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly not 1-1 relationship pre-Beatles and much of the 60s. Many many instances were two or more artists had hits with the same song and at the same time! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I said "most singles have a 1-1 relationship with an artist", not "most songs have a 1-1 relationship with an artist". You ably illustrate the problem with having two templates. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Having glanced a bit further, I think the word "single" is now what's causing the problem. You've Really Got a Hold on Me was originally a single by the Miracles, and two other artists also released singles of it, but meanwhile, the Beatles put it on an album track, which was not released as a single. The infoboxes in that article reflect all this (3 x Single, and 1 x Song for the Beatles' album track). Further, as others have pointed out above, the "single" distinction has been eroded in terms of what's released digitally. Therefore, the way I see it, the lead sentence should say "x is a song written by y", and there should be a Song infobox to that effect. If recordings of the song have been released, there should additionally be what I will call a Song Release infobox (or sub-box) for each of those. The Song Release infobox should give details of the release media (vinyl/CD single, vinyl/CD album, digital ...). PL290 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents, I concur. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PL290, I think you just came up with a very good idea there! It reflects very well the logical "1 song has 0-n recordings" relationship. – Ib Leo (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This infobox proposal is something that I would also agree with. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PL290, I think your on the right lines here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See below for link to further info. PL290 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for people to come up with some example replacement infoboxes? then we can discuss the options further.Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some work has since been done on this; needs somebody to take it further - for details, see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs. PL290 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Color?
Can we possibly change the color? This yellow is old and worn out. Maybe time for something fresh?  Nowyouseeme talk2me  07:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree! I would like it to be green :) But that's just me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think green would clash with the colour for compilation albums. I am not opposed to changing the colour, but make sure to choose one that is not already used at Infobox album#Type. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was just saying that because it's my favorite color. I'm not saying that's what it has to be, that's just what I think it should be. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 *  Nowyouseeme talk2me 
 *  Nowyouseeme talk2me 
 *  Nowyouseeme talk2me 
 *  Nowyouseeme talk2me 
 *  Nowyouseeme talk2me 
 *  Nowyouseeme talk2me 
 * Any of these?  Nowyouseeme talk2me  23:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the issue is they're all slight variations of colors already in use here. The yello is distinguishably different and is a universal match with international versions of wikipedia. I dont think we should go messing with color. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is yellow, and this is definately not yellow.  Nowyouseeme talk2me  23:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, can't we just like swap? Like 'video' has a cool blue color, can't we just swap 'single' and 'video's colors?  Nowyouseeme talk2me  23:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I really like the green one I mentioned above.. it isn't like the other green ones in use already.  Nowyouseeme talk2me  23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again yellow is distinctly different and as a color is accessible for visually impaired/color blind readers. Both the Italian and French projects you kindly pointed to have a different system. The Italian Wiki uses one infobox template: default album there's a field used to specify that its a single. The French wiki uses an even more generic template: Music Recording. I would love to see the french one personally (the entire template is more modern) but when i brought up previously it led nowhere. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "and as a color is accessible for visually impaired/color blind readers" what does this mean? <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you know some people are Color blind, thus shades colors which compose of red and/or blue sometimes can appear as the very same shade of gray for people. Wikipedia was very behind on these sorts of issues hence project ACCESS was set up at WP:Access. there's loads of useful info there. If there is genuinly a request to change the infobox I would most certainly support it, therefore might I suggest we look on the internet for accessible colors and then together (everyone who wants change) agree on a color then present this to the community - it would be more likely to succeeed that way. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I've searched Google regarding 'accessible colors', and to me it seems a little confusing. Do you know if anyone on here is color blind and could give a little help? I also wanted to ask you why you don't spell color as 'colour' - aren't you British? :) <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  01:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha I am British but I guess being on wiki so much has made me use the word color and colour interchangably online. I'll look into the colours thing. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

New Parameter
Hey,

I was wondering if an admin could add a new parameter to the template for reviews. Many singles come with B-sides and other versions, which get rated; allmusic has a lot of these, and sometimes particular songs get rated; pitchfork does this as well.

Thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting reviews in the infobox was removed from albums a while ago because they serve little purpose. They are better placed in the critical reception section alongside commentary. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  20:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, but they still show up in albums infoboxes.. I've seen the separate box for reviews, but thought that it was reserved for albums which received a lot of reviews, and made the infobox rather lengthy. I think that for albums which received only a few, professional reviews can remain in the infobox, and still would like to see the parameter added to the singles infobox. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again I would point out that random stars in the infobox have a lesser meaning that the ratings template which allows the rating to be placed directly next to the critical commentary. According to the template, and to my understanding, it is now a depreciated form of editing to put any reviews int he infobox. Beyond increasing the size of the infobox uncessarily it was decided that ratings serve a better purpose alongside commentary. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  21:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will adjust accordingly if that is the trend, and not because I doubt your words, but where is that decision/discussion located? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course.... I think it was discussed when the album ratings parametre was retired. However in the meantime I've given my opinion but don't let it discourage you from persuing the request. Give it a few days and see what others have said... Since its a slightly different thing others might think its a good idea. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read over a good amount of the discussions, and while I don't have a huge preference either way, I have decided to modify the articles I've written to reflect the consensus. Thanks for the help and info Unique. (To the admin) However, I still think that the template should be changed to include prof. reviews, as I believe many (and up to a few hours ago, myself as well) are unaware of this decision, and I think it would be in the best interest for the writers to have this function and not think "wtf happened to the review?" when clicking preview page and not seeing the review. Not having the parameter does not encourage use of the separate album review box. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We are phasing out the use of the parameter. See the discussion at Template talk:Infobox album. A hidden category has been created so that we can track the articles still using the review parameter, before we depreciate it for good. If you want to add review stars to an article, use album ratings (not only for albums) in a 'Critical reception' section. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)